Aristotle: New Light on His Life and On Some of His Lost Works, Vol. 1: Some Novel Interpretations of the Man and His Life 1138942375, 9781138942370

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright Page
Original Title Page
Original Copyright Page
Dedication
Table of Contents
Preface
Abbreviations
Introduction
I A Brief Account of the (Lost) Vita Aristotelis of Hermippus and of the (Lost) Vita Aristotelis of Ptolemy (-el-Garib)
II The Vita Aristotelis of Dionysius of Halicarnassus
III An Analysis of the Vita Aristotelis of Diogenes Laertius (DL V. 1-16)
IV A Summary of the Syriac and Arabic Vitae Aristotelis
V The Genealogy and Family of Aristotle
VI Aristotle and Callisthenes of Olynthus
VII Aristotle Enters the Academy
VIII Aristotle’s Earliest ‘Course of Lectures on Rhetoric’
IX Aristotle Leaves the Academy
X Was Aristotle Actually the Chief Preceptor of Alexander the Great?
XI Aristotle’s Return to Athens in the Year 335-34 B.C.
XII Aristotle’s Flight from Athens in the Year 323 B.C.
XIII Aristotle, Athens and the Foreign Policy of Macedonia
XIV The Myth of Aristotle’s Suicide
XV Aristotle’s Last Will and Testament
XVI Aristotle’s Religious Convictions
XVII Aristotle’s ‘Self-Portrayal’
Conclusion
Notes
Index of Ancient Authors and Sources
Index of Modern Authors

Citation preview

ROUTLEDGE LIBRARY EDITIONS: ARISTOTLE

Volume 1

ARISTOTLE: NEW LIGHT ON HIS LIFE AND ON SOME OF HIS LOST WORKS VOLUME 1

This page intentionally left blank

ARISTOTLE: NEW LIGHT ON HIS LIFE AND ON SOME OF HIS LOST WORKS VOLUME 1 Some novel interpretations of the man and his life

ANTON-HERMANN CHROUST

First published in 1973 This edition first published in 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 1973 Anton-Hermann Chroust All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: ISBN: ISBN: ISBN: ISBN:

978-1-138-92762-9 978-1-315-67490-2 978-1-138-93706-2 978-1-138-94237-0 978-1-315-67494-0

(Set) (Set) (ebk) (Volume 1) (hbk) (Volume 1) (pbk) (Volume 1) (ebk)

Publisher’s Note The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original copies may be apparent. Disclaimer The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and would welcome correspondence from those they have been unable to trace.

ARISTOTLE New light on his life and on some o f his lost works

Volume I Some novel interpretations o f the man and his life

Anton-Hermann Chroust

Routledge & Kegan Paul

London

First published in 1973 by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, London E C 4 V 3E L Printed in Great Britain by Richard Clay (The Chaucer Press) Ltd, Bungay, Suffolk Copyright Anton-Hermann Chroust 1973 No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except for the quotation of brief passages in criticism IS B N 0 7100 7382 0

To the Memory of Roscoe Pound Teacher, Friend, Scholar

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

ix

Preface Volume I Some novel interpretations of the man and his life

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII X IV XV XVI XV II

xvii Abbreviations xix Introduction A Brief Account o f the (Lost) Vita Aristotelis o f Hermippus 1 and o f the (Lost) Vita Aristotelis o f Ptolemy (-el-Garib) 16 The Vita Aristotelis o f Dionysius o f Halicarnassus An Analysis o f the Vita Aristotelis o f Diogenes Laertius (DL V. 1-16) 25 A Summary o f the Syriac and Arabic Vitae Aristotelis 54 The Genealogy and Family o f Aristotle 73 Aristotle and Callisthenes o f Olynthus 83 92 Aristotle Enters the Academy Aristotle’s Earliest ‘Course o f Lectures on Rhetoric’ 105 Aristotle Leaves the Academy 1 17 Was Aristotle Actually the Chief Preceptor o f Alexander the Great? 125 Aristotle’s Return to Athens in the Year 335-34 B.C. 133 Aristotle’s Flight from Athens in the Year 323 B.C. 145 Aristotle, Athens and the Foreign Policy o f Macedonia 155 The Myth o f Aristotle’s Suicide 177 Aristotle’s Last W ill and Testament 183 Aristotle’s Religious Convictions 221 Aristotle’s ‘ Self-Portrayal’ 232 Conclusion 249 Notes 257 Index o f Ancient Authors and Sources 417 Index o f Modern Authors 435 v ii

CONTENTS

Volume I I Observations on some of Aristotle9s lost works

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI X II XIII X IV XV XVI X V II

Abbreviations Introduction The Probable Dates o f Some o f Aristotle’s Lost Works A Note on Some o f the Minor Lost Works o f Aristotle Aristotle’s First Literary Effort: The Gryllus—A W ork on the Nature o f Rhetoric Eudemus or On the Soul: An Aristotelian Dialogue on the Immortality o f the Soul The Psychology in Aristotle’s Eudemus or On the Soul Aristotle’s On Justice A B rief Account o f the Reconstruction o f Aristotle’s Protrepticus An Emendation to Fragment 13 (Walzer, Ross) o f Aristotle’s Protrepticus What Prompted Aristotle to Address the Protrepticus to Themison o f Cyprus? The Term ‘ Philosopher’ and the Panegyric Analogy in Aristotle’s Protrepticus Aristotle’s Politicus The Probable Date o f Aristotle’s On Philosophy A Cosmological (Teleological) Proof for the Existence o f God in Aristotle’s On Philosophy The Concept o f God in Aristotle’s On Philosophy (Cicero, De Natura Deorum I. 13. 33) The Doctrine o f the Soul in Aristotle’s On Philosophy Aristotle’s On Philosophy and the ‘ Philosophies o f the East’ Aristotle’s Criticism o f Plato’s ‘ Philosopher K in g’ : Some Comments to Aristotle’s On Kingship Conclusion Postscript Werner Jaeger and the Reconstruction o f Aristotle’s Lost Works Notes Index o f Ancient Authors Index o f Modem Authors

v iii

ix xi 1 15 29 43 55 7i 86 105 119 126 134 145 159 175 194 206 216 224 2 31 270 469 495

Preface

This book, which consists o f two distinct volumes, essentially is a collection o f papers which I wrote between 1963 and 1968, when I became interested in the ‘ historical Aristotle’—the Aristotle revealed not merely in the highly problematic Corpus Aristotelicum, but also in the ancient biographical tradition and in the ‘ lost works ’ o f the young Stagirite. Some o f the papers collected and edited here owe their origin to classroom discussions and lectures which I offered while on leave from the Notre Dame Law School. They have previously been pub­ lished in various journals, both in the United States and elsewhere. When re-editing these papers for this book, I made some far-reaching alterations, important additions, incisive corrections and, it is hoped, some worthwhile improvements. But let the reader beware. This book, which is neither proAristotelian nor anti-Aristotelian, reflects a predominantly historical attitude towards Aristotle and the essentially enigmatic ‘ Aristotelian problem.’ Such an attitude might make it rather unpopular in certain quarters which, for reasons known only to the ‘ initiated,’ insist on the timeless impersonality and absolute philosophic sovereignty o f Aristotelian philosophy. The historical approach, which is opposed to all forms o f emotional idolatry and uncritical dogmatism, however, should not make this book completely useless to those who for reasons o f their own prefer ‘ Aristotelianism’—whatever that means—to Aristotle himself. Without an adequate grasp o f Aristotle as a concrete historical phenomenon we may never gain an adequate understanding o f his true position and concrete significance within the intellectual history o f Western mankind. The particular human condition, being what it is, always was, and probably always will be, simply demands that man’s deeds, from the most insignificant performance to the most exalted achievement, take place in a time continuum and, hence, in history. Timelessness and a-historicity always result in the deplorable loss o f personality and individuality, and concomitantly, in the loss o f IX

PREFACE

real meaning. Dogmatic fervor, aside from impeding or retarding real scholarship, can never become an adequate substitute for historical facts. Modern Aristotelian scholarship, which undoubtedly begins with Werner Jaeger, has brought about the realization that a more satis­ factory and more adequate insight into Aristotle the philosopher requires a better understanding o f Aristotle the man. Hence, we must know more about the historical personality called Aristotle and about the salient circumstances or events o f his life. N o attempt is made here, however, to write a coherent and exhaustive biography o f the Stagirite. I limit myself to the scrutiny and discussion o f several traditional biographies o f Aristotle. Within the confines o f these I further restrict myself to some significant incidents in his life and to certain charac­ teristic traits o f the man. Many o f my discussions consist o f ‘ educated guesses’ and what appear to be reasonable conjectures or hypotheses intended to stimulate further investigations, rather than to offer definite or final answers. In brief, aside from attempting to supply some tentative answers, this book is also a deliberate search for additional suggestions, informed challenges and scholarly disagreements. Only in the dispassionate confrontation o f conflicting scholarly views may we ever hope to obtain true insights into the significant incidents in the ntellectual history o f mankind. Since some o f Aristotle’s Tost works,’ at least those discussed here, apparently belong to the formative era o f his philosophic thought, they would seem to reveal, as Werner Jaeger has pointed out, the main trends in Aristotle’s intellectual development. Hence, Jaeger’s views on matters relating to the evaluation o f Aristotle’s philosophic thought are considered as being o f great importance. It is conceded, however, that as regards certain details and interpretations, subsequent scholarship has added, amplified, modified, corrected and even discarded some o f Jaeger’s notions. To list the names o f all the scholars who, in one way or another, have contributed to the retrieval, reconstruction and inter­ pretation o f the Tost works ’ would require a separate volume, especially i f I had intended to discuss all their suggestions, theories and scholarly disagreements. Suffice it to say that their many and varied contributions are o f the highest quality, always stimulating and certainly exciting. Their labors, hypotheses and even their errors have vitally contributed to the tentative solutions o f the many almost insurmountable difficulties connected with Aristotle’s Tost works.’ Aside from supplying clues as to the general course o f Aristotle’s intellectual development, the ‘ lost works ’ o f the Stagirite are in them­ selves o f abiding interest to us. They are, in an unequivocal sense, an X

PREFACE

essential part o f the philosophic literature o f antiquity. As such they deserve our close attention, especially since they seem to have enjoyed much authority during the third, second, and early part o f the first centuries B.C. When dealing with the ‘ lost works,’ we must always proceed on the fair assumption that their identification, attribution, reconstruction and interpretation have, in the main, been successful. In the light o f present Aristotelian scholarship, it must be conceded, however, that these identifications, attributions, reconstructions and interpretations are at best disciplined conjectures. This fact is only too well known to all those who have dealt with the many vexing problems connected with the Tost works’ o f Aristotle. Some, though by no means all, scholars are o f the opinion that in certain vital aspects the Tost works’ o f Aristotle seem to conflict with the philosophic views espoused in the traditional Corpus Aristotelicum. This, in turn, raises the further and far-reaching problem, not to be discussed here: whether the author o f the Tost works’ and the author o f at least some o f the treatises included in the Corpus Aristotelicum are one and the same person. Valentin Rose, who already realized that the philosophic standpoint manifest in the Tost works’ is not always compatible with that expressed in the doctrinal treatises or pragmateia, simply declared the former pseudepigrapha. W . Jaeger attempted to overcome this impasse by claiming that in his progression from the early Tost works’ to the later doctrinal treatises collected in the Corpus, Aristotle underwent a noticeable philosophic conversion from an initial Platonism characteristic o f his earlier years to a definite ‘ Aristotelianism’ typical o f his later years. Both Rose and Jaeger, it will be noted, never so much as questioned Aristotle’s authorship o f the Corpus. In 1952, Joseph Ziircher, in his Aristoteles Werk und Geist— Aristotle's Work and Spirit—(Paderbom, 1952), advanced or, more accurately, implied the startling thesis, subsequently rejected by almost all scholars,1 that certain treatises incorporated in the Corpus, especially the Metaphysics, must in large part be credited to Theophrastus and to the Early Peripatus, although it is quite certain that some Aristotelian compositions actually came to be included in the Corpus. In this fashion, Ziircher in fact reversed, at least in part, the obviously traditionalist position taken by Rose and Jaeger. Perhaps the theses advocated by Ziircher, with certain far-reaching reservations and modifications, deserve further investigation. After all, the tradition concerning the transmission o f Aristotle’s doctrinal or ‘ intra-mural’ writings lends some support to his views.2 Presumably, at some future time, we might, whether we like it or not, be compelled to rename the present Corpus xi

PREFACE

Aristotelicum and call it more discriminatingly Corpus Scriptorum Peripateticorum Veterum, that is, a ‘ collection’ o f writings which not only includes authentic Aristotelica, but in all likelihood also contains authentic Peripatetica. In other words, in the light o f Theophrastus’ last w ill and testament (DL V. 52), this ‘ collection’ might also contain compositions o f the Early Peripatetics (down to approximately the year 287-86 B.C.). As regards present-day progressive Aristotelian scholarship, such a possibility, however, is highly problematic. Upon closer scrutiny, it might prove to be wholly abortive or, more likely, incapable o f scientific proof. A ny scholarly undertaking which aims at renaming the traditional Corpus Aristotelicum by calling it Corpus Scriptorum Peripateticorum Veterum implies nothing less than the extremely involved and, in a way, very risky attempt to challenge the authenticity o f at least certain parts o f the Corpus Aristotelicum. Such an endeavor would, in all likelihood, have to proceed along the following four major lines o f inquiry (two o f which are discussed in the present book). First, we must produce a more thorough, more detailed and more reliable account o f the salient events in the life o f Aristotle. The external circumstances surrounding as well as influencing the life o f a scholar and author, as a rule, have a determining, i f not decisive, influence on his scholarly and literary productivity. In the particular case o f Aristotle, our main sources, that is, the extant ancient biographical reports or remarks, provided they contain reliable information, permit us to assume that during the greater part o f his adult life he was vitally involved in some o f King Philip’s political operations and aspirations, which during a relatively short span o f time transformed Macedonia, the homeland o f Aristotle, into a world power. Thus it might be surmised that Aristotle’s prolonged visit with Hermias o f Atarneus (348-47 to 345-44 B.C.), for instance, was primarily a diplomatic mission in the service o f King Philip rather than a purely ‘ philosophic excursion,’ commonly referred to as the ‘ Assian period,’ or, as some scholars would have it, a ‘ phase in his intellectual reorientation’ spent in Assos in the company o f Erastus and Coriscus. It may be possible that a different political mission preoccupied the time o f Aristotle’s second sojourn in Athens between 335-34 and 323 B.C., a period which traditionally has been referred to as his philosophic Meisterjahre—the years in which he is said to have produced his greatest systematic works on philosophy. The particular circumstances o f his return to Athens in the year 33 5 -34 B .C .; the general political and emotional atmosphere prevailing in Athens during his second stay; and the particular nature x ii

PREFACE

o f his likely ‘ political mission’ in Athens during these turbulent thirteen years—all these facts or factors, however, do not seem to have been particularly conducive to the production o f great systematic works on philosophy. Second, we must more thoroughly investigate the lost early works o f Aristotle, the vast majority o f which were probably composed before his departure from Athens and from the Platonic Academy in 348-47 B .C . 3 Since we possess only ‘ fragments’ o f these lost works, and since some o f these fragments are o f a very problematic nature, as is their proper assignment to a specific composition, such an investigation in itself is extremely hazardous. While some scholars maintain to have discovered distinct Platonisms in these early lost works (which as such are unquestionably authentic), other scholars emphatically deny this. Assuming that the Platonism o f the lost early works can reliably be established, then the following three hypotheses might possibly be advanced: (I) The historical Aristotle was essentially a Platonist, although on some minor points as well as in the manner in which he presented his arguments he deviated from Plato; (II) after his departure from Athens and from the Platonic Academy in 348-47 B.C. he aban­ doned the ‘ philosophic life’ in order to dedicate himself primarily to political and diplomatic activities on behalf o f King Philip; and (III) the great systematic works or pragmateia o f a later period are mainly the products o f Theophrastus’ school (the Early Peripatus) and o f its ‘ systematizing tendencies,’ although they probably contain some substantially Aristotelian elements. Third, we would have to know more about the details concerning the transmission o f the traditional Corpus Aristotelicum after 286 B.C. Perhaps the most significant, as well as most fateful, event in the whole history o f this transmission is the passage contained in the last will and testament o f Theophrastus, the scholarch o f the Peripatus, probably drafted shortly before 287-86 B.C. and preserved by Diogenes Laertius (DL V. 52): ‘ And the library [of the Peripatus] I leave and bequeath to Neleus [of Scepsis].’ This passage, which refers to the whole library o f the Peripatus as it existed in c. 287-86 B .C ., undoubtedly relates not only to the ‘ intra-mural’ works o f Aristotle, provided such ‘ intra-mural writings’ ever existed, but also to the compositions o f the Early Peripatetics (written after 323-22 B .C .). Neleus took the whole library to Scepsis (in North-Western Asia Minor), where after his death his heirs permitted it to deteriorate badly and to become partly lost or irreparably damaged. The long and confusing wanderings o f this library, which lasted for more than two centuries, the several futile as x iii

PREFACE

well as inept attempts to recover and restore it, and the many capricious efforts to implement, correct and edit its essentially unidentifiable remnants, make it impossible for us to ascertain with any degree o f certainty which parts, if any, o f this Peripatetic library were authored by Aristotle, and which parts were composed by Theophrastus and by Theophrastus’ associates and disciples. It is quite possible and, as a matter o f fact, very likely that after its recovery (c. during the first decade o f the first century B.C. by Apellicon o f Teos, or c. the middle o f the first century B.C. by Andronicus o f Rhodes), this whole library simply came to be known as ‘ the works o f Aristotle.’ This might also explain, among other matters, why so few o f the authentic composi­ tions o f the Early Peripatetics who, judging from the surviving ancient lists o f their works, must have been rather prolific writers, are preserved under the name o f their true authors. Whether or not some o f the Aristotelian pragmateia ever reached Alexandria during the third and second centuries B .C ., or whether some ‘ copies’ o f these pragmateia ever existed outside the Peripatus and, hence, escaped the tragic fate that befell the library o f Neleus, is difficult to ascertain. The fact that these pragmateia seem generally to have remained unknown until about the middle o f the first century B .C ., apparently speaks against such an assumption.4 In any event, the manner in which the library o f the Peripatus (as it stood in c. 287-86 B.C.) was handled after Neleus had transported it to Scepsis, in all likelihood will defeat any effort to establish with any degree o f certainty the true identity o f those authors who, prior to the year 287-86 B .C ., might have contributed to it.5 And, fourth, we might attempt to ascertain the Aristotelian author­ ship o f the Corpus Aristotelicum, or o f any part thereof, through the reliance on ‘ internal evidence,’ that is, through the use o f such criteria as literary style, linguistics, and technical terminology; as well as through the employment o f such standards as methodology, systematics, modes o f argumentation and proof, and the general philosophic tenor o f the works incorporated in the Corpus. In view o f the fact that we apparently lack any authoritative knowledge o f Aristotle’s authentic writings and, hence, do not possess any valid or reliable criteria to carry out such an investigation, this last approach, as the scholarly work o f Joseph Ziircher has clearly shown, is an extremely difficult if not impossible undertaking, not to say an unrewarding and outright hazardous task. It remains for some intrepid and unprejudiced scholar to explore these four proposed avenues o f inquiry, and in doing so, to verify, particularize, modify, implement or reject the general suggestion that xiv

PREFACE

the traditional Corpus Aristotelicum might possibly and, perhaps, more appropriately be renamed Corpus Scriptorum Peripateticorum Veterum.6 It is possible, therefore, that further investigations may, indeed, remove any and all reasonable doubts about the authenticity o f the whole Corpus Aristotelicum and thus assuage our justifiable apprehension. But only in the restrained confrontation o f conflicting views may we ever attain to scholarly truth; and only through competent and dis­ passionate investigation into the merits o f each o f these conflicting views may we ever resolve our unending quest for true knowledge. Acknowledgments are gratefully made to the following learned journals or publications which permitted, in a substantially altered and often radically modified form, the re-publication o f the articles or papers collected in this book: Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae (Hungary); Acta Classica (South Africa); Acta Orientalia (Denmark); Antiquite Classique (Belgium); Apeiron (Australia); Classical Folia (U.S.A.); Classical Philology (U.S.A.); Divus Thomas (Italy); Emerita (Spain); Greece and Rome (Britain); Hermes (Germany); Historia (Germany); Journal of the History of Philosophy (U .S.A .); Laval Theologique et Philosophique (Canada); Mnemosyne (The Netherlands); Modern Schoolman (U.S.A.); New Scholasticism (U.S.A.); Notre Dame Lawyer (U.S.A.); Review of Metaphysics (U.S.A.); Revue des Etudes Grecques (France); Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie (Germany); Rivista Critica di Storia della Filosofia (Italy); Symbolae Osloenses (Nor­ way) ; Tijdschrift voor Filosofie (Belgium); and Wiener Studien (Austria).7 The major draft o f the original manuscript had to be completed early in 1968. Hence, barring a few exceptions, the subsequent second­ ary literature could not be considered. In view o f the fact that there exists an immense host o f secondary works on Aristotle o f greatly varying value and o f frequently irreconcilable philolosophic or scholarly viewpoints, it was decided to forgo the task o f adding a special bibliography. The reader will find ample references to the sources and to the secondary literature in the numerous footnotes. I am deeply indebted to many persons: to my several assistants, who during the past years have aided me in many ways; to countless libraries and librarians, both in the United States and elsewhere, who were always ready to supply me with materials and valuable bits o f information; to my many friends and colleagues in many universities, both in the United States and elsewhere, who not only counselled me wisely and generously, but also criticized some o f my views as well as xv

PREFACE

directed my attention to texts and publications which had escaped me; and to the many scholars, both past and present, whose tireless efforts and brilliant publications have been o f immeasurable help to me. To all these friends, mentors and benefactors, whose encouragement, counsel and assistance was sorely needed and is sincerely appreciated, I express my deeply felt and everlasting gratitude. Since I am under obligation to so many people, it is simply impossible to list all the individual names o f those who have helped and assisted me. I wish, however, to mention my student assistants who unstintingly gave me much o f their time as well as their devotion and ability in the writing, re-writing, editing, typing and proof-reading o f the original manuscript or the original papers: Miss N . Deane (now Mrs Dennis W . Moran), M r Ronald G. Brander and M r Joseph A. Novak, all o f the University o f Notre Dame Graduate School; M r John G. Hund and M r Thomas Farrell, both o f the Notre Dame Law School; Miss Aletta M. Fonte o f the College o f St M ary’s; M r Kelly Morris, M r Daniel J. Burns, M r Dudley Andrew, M r Joseph Starshak, M r Kevin Flynn, M r Alfred J. Leotta, M r Bernard M. Ryan, Mr Phillip R . Herndon, Mr Richard J. Wall, Jr. and M r Glenn L. Smerillo, all students at the University o f Notre Dame; and Mr. Michael E. Libonati, a student at the Yale Law School. It was both delightful and instructive to work with this splendid group o f earnest young people who, although pursuing vastly different interests and studies, were enthusiastically collaborating with me in the spirit o f that intellectual eagerness and curiosity which is the very soul o f any true universitas litterarum. I also want to thank the University o f Notre Dame, the Center o f the Study o f Man in Contemporary Society at the University o f Notre Dame, and the Institute for International Studies at the University o f Notre Dame for having assisted me with generous grants-in-aid and leaves o f absence which enabled me to carry on scholarly investigations. Last, but not least, I am forever indebted to Mr Frank P. Mancino, a former student o f mine, whose generosity made possible the publication o f this book. For the errors which I have undoubtedly committed I assume full responsibility. N o simple words o f acknowledgement, however, could possibly express m y feelings o f affection and gratitude towards the one to whose memory this book is dedicated: Roscoe Pound, who by his many accomplishments in the almost limitless realms o f the human intellect has won for himself an everlasting place among scholars.

xvi

Abbreviations

DL DH VH VM VV VL I VS II VS IV A IIV A

III VA IV VA

Diogenes Laertius, The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philoso­ phers Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, I Epistola ad Ammaeum Vita Aristotelis Hesychii (Vita Menaoiana, Vita Menagii) Vita Aristotelis Marciana Vita Aristotelis Vulgata (Vita Pseudo-Ammoniana, Vita PseudoElias) Vita Aristotelis Latina I Vita Aristotelis Syriaca (author unknown), Cod. Berol. Sachau 226 I I Vita Aristotelis Syriaca (author unknown), Cod. Vat. Syriacus 158 I Vita Aristotelis Arabica (Ibn Abi Yaqub an-Nadim, Kitab al-Fihrist) II Vita Aristotelis Arabica (Abu-l-Wafa al-Mubassir (or Mubashir) Ibn Fatik, Kitab Mukhtar al-Hikam wa-Mahasin al-Kilam— The Book of Selections from Wisdom and Beautiful Sayings) I II Vita Aristotelis Arabica (Al-Qifti Gamaladdin al-Qadi alAkram, Tabaqat al-Hukama—Schools of the Wise Men) IV Vita Aristotelis Arabica (Ibn Abi Usaibia, Uyun al-Anba fi Tabaqat al-Atibba—Book of Sources of Information About the Schools of Doctors)

In the Arabic names and titles, the ‘ accents’ have been omitted. The Vitae Aristotelis mentioned above have been compiled and are easily accessible in I. During, Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition, Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, vol. 63, no. 2 (Goteborg,

1957)-

x v ii

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

Aside from a more general and rather sweeping discussion o f the several Vitae Aristotelis in Chapter I, only the Vita (or Chronologia) Aristotelis o f Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, the Vita o f Diogenes Laertius and the Vitae o f the Syriac and Arabic biographers are treated in this book with any detail. The Vita Aristotelis Marciana, which was recently edited by O. Gigon, the Vita Hesychii (Vita Menagii or Vita Menagiana), the Vita Vulgata, the Vita Latina and the brief biographical sketches found in the Neo-Platonic commentaries to the works o f Aristotle, on the other hand, have not received special treatment, although frequent reference is made to them.1 Chapter I also makes an attempt to re­ construct the essential content o f the lost Vita Aristotelis o f Hermippus o f Smyrna as well as that o f the likewise lost Vita Aristotelis o f Ptolemy (-el-Garib). These two Vitae, it is claimed, constitute the most important sources or intermediary authorities for the majority o f the subsequent Vitae. Chapter II, which discusses the Vita Aristotelis o f Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, indicates that this Vita is actually a brief chronology which offers little detailed information, except some valuable and apparently accurate biographical data. The Vita Aristotelis o f Diogenes Laertius, which is analyzed in Chapter III, poses many vexing problems, some o f which are almost impossible to resolve. Especially difficult to determine are the sources used by Diogenes Laertius. There can be little doubt, however, that this Vita, as we shall see in Chapter I, draws heavily on the Vita o f Hermippus. Chapter IV, again, presents a general survey and discussion o f the Syriac and Arabic Vitae Aristotelis without entering into a detailed analysis o f each individual Vita. This particular chapter is primarily an attempt to illustrate the peculiar biographical trend introduced (?) by the Neo-Platonic biographers and by Ptolemy (-el-Garib) in particular. O f necessity no less than by design, the expository and analytical discussions o f all these Vitae Aristotelis are at times repetitious in that certain statements found in one Vita are referred to or restated again and again. x ix

INTRODUCTION

It may be contended that Chapters I-IV are actually part o f a more general introduction to Chapters V -X V II. This is also indicated by the fact that Chapters V -X V II are prefaced by a lengthy ‘ Headnote.’ Hence, a reader not wishing to be bored by acribic ‘ Quellenforschung,’ m ay safely ignore Chapters I-IV. More specifically, Chapters I-IV present and discuss the many and at times desperately involved problems connected with a more detailed analysis and evaluation o f certain, though by no means all, biographical sources. The somewhat arbitrary selection o f these biographical sources was made on the basis o f the following considerations: The lost Vita Aristotelis o f Hermippus and the lost Vita Aristotelis o f Ptolemy (-el-Garib), it is widely and probably correctly held, constitute what appear to be the two main biographical trends. The Vita o f Diogenes Laertius, in particular, to a fairly large extent, though not exclusively, relies on the Vita o f Hermippus (as does the Vita Aristotelis o f Hesychius) and, hence, at least in part, may be considered an ‘ epitome’ or ‘ derivative’ o f the latter. The Syriac and Arabic Vitae, in turn, are primarily based on the Vita o f Ptolemy (-el Garib)—as are the Vita Marciana, the Vita Vulgata and the Vita Latina—and, hence, may be called ‘ epitomes’ or ‘ deriva­ tives’ o f Ptolemy’s biography. The Vita Aristotelis o f Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, which is largely based on what appear to be independent investigations, seems to follow a course o f inquiry all its own. The remainder o f Volume I contains observations, at times o f a highly speculative or conjectural nature, on some salient events in the life and experiences o f Aristotle, including a tentative genealogy o f Aristotle (Chapter V) as well as a discussion o f his relationship to Callisthenes o f Olynthus (Chapter VI). O f particular interest to the student o f ancient philosophy and ancient history might be Chapter VII, which investigates Aristotle’s entrance into the Platonic Academy in the year 367 B.C. and the particular circumstances surrounding this significant incident. This subject is touched upon again in Chapter XIII. Chapter VIII discusses Aristotle’s first attempt at teaching rhetoric in the Academy. Chapter IX tries to shed some light on the likely reason or reasons for Aristotle’s rather sudden withdrawal from Athens and the Academy in the year 348 B.C. This particular chapter denies that Plato’s death was the cause o f Aristotle’s departure—a subject which is also discussed in Chapter XIII. Chapter X , which is highly conjectural, raises the question o f whether Aristotle was in fact the preceptor or chief instructor o f Alexander the Great. Chapter X I deals with some o f the peculiar circumstances surrounding Aristotle’s return to Athens in the year 335-34 B.C. Chapter XII, like Chapter XIII, xx

INTRODUCTION

attempts to shed some light on the likely causes o f Aristotle’s second flight from Athens in the year 323 B.C. Chapter XIII, which takes up again some o f the problems and events discussed in Chapters VII, IX, X I and XII, essays to show that Aristotle might have been something more than just a withdrawn and unworldly philosopher—that he might have been actively involved in some o f King Philip’s political and diplomatic machinations. Chapter X IV attempts to disprove the story, apparently circulated in antiquity, that Aristotle committed suicide in the year 322 B .C. Chapter X V analyzes and evaluates the two extant major versions o f Aristotle’s last will and testament, one o f the few surviving primary documents relating to the Stagirite. Chapters X V I and X V II contain attempts to sketch what appear to be some o f Aristotle’s main traits o f character as they might be culled from his writings. The general nature o f this book as well as the particular mode in which certain topics are presented or argued make it almost necessary to repeat or restate certain statements, analyses and conjectures. Chapter XIII, for instance, reviews, in a slightly altered form and for a different purpose, topics, incidents and issues which are also discussed or prepared in Chapters VII, IX, X I and XII. In a book o f this kind, such repetitions are apparently unavoidable and, perhaps, even necessary for the sake o f clarity and persuasiveness. It goes without saying that much o f what is suggested especially in Chapters V -X V II is to some extent based on conjectures, educated guesses and informed speculations resting on the mastery and intelligent exploitation o f all available sources. In the light o f our frequently inadequate and often conflicting sources—the fact that many o f these sources often manifest either an unmistakably encomiastic tendency or an outright defamatory and hostile attitude—such conjectures are now and then necessary, not to say unavoidable, provided they stay within the bounds o f reason tempered by an adequate grasp and intelligent evaluation o f all available information. It is not expected, however, that the reader accept any o f the suggestions proffered in these chapters. But he might be stimulated to re-think and re-evaluate some o f the conventional notions concerning certain crucial incidents in the life o f Aristotle. In so doing he might also discover more satisfactory and persuasive answers to some o f the many puzzling and so far unanswered or inadequately answered problems connected with the biographical tradition o f Aristotle. In any event, a closer and perhaps more critical scrutiny o f all the available biographical materials should divulge or at least suggest that the historical Aristotle was apparently a very complex xxi

INTRODUCTION

person, having many interests and pursuing varied activities. It may also show that he probably played an active and, perhaps, important role in the political rise o f Macedonia to a great power. Furthermore, such an examination might indicate that, in consequence o f his political and diplomatic activities, Aristotle assisted in laying the foundation as well as in establishing the political pre-requisites for the far-flung conquests o f Alexander the Great which ushered in a new and extremely fruitful epoch in the intellectual, political and cultural history o f Western mankind. Together with the early but now lost works and the later doctrinal treatises o f Aristotle, provided the latter are in their entirety by Aristotle, such a scrutiny also seems to indicate that Aristotle was possessed o f a very attractive personality. Shortly before the year 200 B.C., the Alexandrian grammarian Hermippus o f Smyrna composed a Collection of the Lives o f the [Peripatetic] Philosophers which also included a Vita Aristotelis. It is safe to assume that Hermippus made use o f a Collection (of pertinent facts and documents pertaining to the lives and achievements o f the first scholarchs o f the Peripatus, including those o f Aristotle) compiled by Ariston o f Ceos, the successor (in 226 B.C.?) o f Lycon in the Peripatetic scholarchate. Around the middle o f the second century B.C., Apollodorus o f Athens established what appears to be a fairly accurate ‘ chronology’ o f the main events in the life o f the Stagirite. After the middle o f the first century B.C., it seems, Andronicus o f Rhodes, in connection with his edition o f the Corpus Aristotelicum, composed a sort o f brief Vita Aristotelis—a kind o f outline recording the main events in the life o f Aristotle. The thesis that Andronicus was the author o f a Vita Aristotelis, however, has been rejected by some scholars. All these Vitae are lost, but they seem to have survived, at least in part and certainly with some important changes, in later biographical accounts. Thus, the Vita Aristotelis (or Chronologia Vitae Aristotelis) o f Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, written during the first century B.C., to some extent might have been influenced by the Chronology or Chronicle o f Apollodorus. During the third century a . d ., Diogenes Laertius composed his Vita Aristotelis, which constitutes the first part o f Book V o f his Vitae Philosophorum. This particular Vita, it is widely held, relies rather indiscriminately and not always judiciously upon Ariston o f Ceos, Apollodorus and, especially, on Hermippus, as well as on a host o f other reporters. Probably in the course o f the fourth century a . d ., Ptolemy, who in all likelihood was a member o f the Neo-Platonic school o f Iamblichus, wrote a Vita Aristotelis. The sources or materials used by Ptolemy, whom the Arabs called Ptolemy-el-Garib (Ptolemy x x ii

I NTRODUCTION

‘ the Stranger*), are not known for certain, but it is reasonably safe to assume that he relied, at least to a limited extent (and perhaps indirectly), upon the Vita o f Hermippus, the Vita o f Andronicus o f Rhodes and upon a number o f other biographers and authors who can no longer be identified. The original Vita Aristotelis o f Ptolemy is lost, but during the fifth century a .d . an epitome o f this Vita was made. This epitome became the basis o f the following (surviving) Vitae Aristotelis: The Vita Aristotelis Marciana, the Vita Aristotelis Vulgata (which might date back to the Neo-Platonic school o f Elias), the Vita Aristotelis Latina (which is a thirteenth-century Latin translation o f a Greek epitome o f Ptolemy’s Vita), the two (anonymous) Syriac Vitae Aristotelis, and the four Arabic Vitae Aristotelis. The Vita Marciana, the Vita Vulgata, and the Greek original o f the Vita Latina, in the main reflect the practice o f the NeoPlatonic authors and teachers to preface their writings and lectures on Aristotle with some excursions on the life o f Aristotle, based on an epitome o f Ptolemy’s Vita Aristotelis. Hence, they are the products o f several generations o f Neo-Platonic teachers and commentators. The four Arabic Vitae Aristotelis, on the other hand, are based on a Syriac (now lost) translation o f an epitome o f Ptolemy’s original Vita Aristotelis, while the two Syriac Vitae are short resumes o f this translation. The Vita Aristotelis Hesychii, also called the Vita Menagiana or Vita Menagii, was authored during the sixth century a .d . by the historian Hesychius o f Miletus who made it a part o f his Onomatologon. This Vita seems to have been influenced by the Vita Aristotelis o f Hermippus or by sources which in part rely on Hermippus, including perhaps the Vita o f Diogenes Laertius. Some o f these Vitae Aristotelis are discussed in greater detail in Chapters I-IV. Finally, there survives a number o f short ‘ biographical introductions’ to some o f the Neo-Platonic commentaries to the doctrinal treatises o f Aristotle. These ‘ biographical introductions,’ which date back to the sixth century a . d ., likewise were influenced by the Vita Aristotelis o f Ptolemy. Aside from the extant Vitae Aristotelis, our biographical knowledge o f Aristotle is based on the following evidence: (a) autobiographical references or allusions contained in the preserved didactic or doctrinal treatises (Corpus Aristotelicum), provided the latter in their entirety are authentic; (b) autobiographical references and allusions found in the surviving fragments o f the early lost works o f Aristotle; (c) documen­ tary evidence; (d) versifications o f Aristotle; (e) letters o f Aristotle, provided the latter are authentic; and (f) the reports and accounts o f x x iii

INTRODUCTION

ancient authors, especially those o f his contemporaries or o f writers who lived one or two generations after Aristotle. One o f the striking features o f the preserved Corpus Aristotelicum is the paucity o f direct autobiographical references.2 Nicomachean Ethics 1096 a 33 ff., for instance, contains an indirect and rather general allusion to Aristotle’s close association with the Platonic Academy. Nicomachean Ethics n 72 b 15 ff., on the other hand, might contain a personal remark o f Aristotle reflecting his admiration for Eudoxus’ excellence o f character. In the Metaphysics and Nicomachean Ethics we find some direct or indirect (and occasionally highly critical) references to Speusippus3 and Xenocrates.4 There are no indications o f Aristotle’s friendship with Hermias o f Atarneus, although Politics 1267 a 31 ff. relates an episode in the life o f Eubulus o f Atarneus, the ‘ predecessor’ o f Hermias. Neither are we informed o f the fact that there existed close ties o f friendship between Aristotle and King Philip o f Macedonia, although the assassination o f Philip is mentioned in Politics 13 n b 1 ff. This almost complete lack o f any autobiographical reports in the doctrinal treatises, even where such reports would be wholly appro­ priate, is in itself rather disturbing. As such, it might cast an ominous shadow on the authenticity o f these treatises. The doctrinal treatises, provided they are authentic or, at least, in part authentic, however, permit certain indirect references or some valid assumptions as to the main traits o f Aristotle’s character and intellectual or moral outlook in general.5 The surviving fragments o f Aristotle’s lost works, on the other hand, seem to indicate that these early compositions contain some valuable bits o f biographical information, such as Aristotle’s close friendship with Eudemus o f Cyprus,6 his acquaintance (?) with Themison o f Cyprus,7 his personal relations with Alexander,8 his religious con­ victions,9 his personal views on ‘ nobility’ o f character and deport­ ment10 and his conception o f true paideia pleasure12 and wealth.13 Moreover, according to weighty ancient evidence, the majority o f Aristotle’s early works, which are without doubt authentic, were written in the form o f dialogues in which the author himself often appeared as the main interlocutor or leader o f the discussion,14 while the other interlocutors maintained a philosophic position frequently opposed to that held by Aristotle. Such a method, it will have to be conceded, not only permits but actually invites ‘ autobiographical’ observations or self-revelations which would indicate Aristotle’s basic outlook as well as his intellectual attitude towards other philosophers or philosophies.

,n

x x iv

INTRODUCTION

As might be expected, the ‘ documentary evidence’ concerning Aristotle is rather meager. It consists (a) o f Aristotle’s last will and testament, preserved in an abridged (and perhaps somewhat mutilated) form by Diogenes Laertius as well as by some o f the Arabic biographers o f Aristotle;15 (b) o f an ‘ inscription’ by the Amphictionic League (probably o f the year 329-28 B.C.) honoring Aristotle for certain services he had rendered the League;16 and (c) o f an honorific inscrip­ tion by the city o f Ephesus (probably o f the year 318 -17 B.C.) con­ ferring the decree o f proxenia on Nicanor, the nephew (or adopted son?) o f Aristotle.17 It may also be argued that the Vita Aristotelis Marciana 17, the Vita Aristotelis Vulgata 17 and the Vita Aristotelis Latina 1 7 18 contain what might be a reference to, or distinct echo of, an honorific decree (or decree o fproxenia) which at one time was bestowed upon Aristotle by the city o f Stagira. The same may hold true as regards the report contained in the Vita Aristotelis Arabica o f Ibn Abi Usaibia 17 -2 1, where we are informed that at one time the Athenians proposed (and perhaps erected) an honorific stele dedicated to Aristotle, com­ memorating his many beneficial services to the city o f Athens.19 As far as we are still able to ascertain, the versifications o f Aristotle consist o f an Elegy in memory o f Plato (or Eudemus?),20 a Hymn to Eros (?) or to Helios (?),21 an Elegy to Artemis,22 an honorific inscription intended for a commemorative stele for Hermias o f Atarneus in Delphi,23 and a Hymn in memory as well as in honor o f Hermias.24 The ancient biographers o f Aristotle, as well as some other ancient authors, relate that the Stagirite wrote numerous letters to a great many people.25 It is well-nigh impossible, however, to ascertain whether these letters, or at least some o f them, are authentic, or whether they are naive forgeries o f a later date.26 It is widely held, however, that the overwhelming majority o f these letters are probably forgeries. The ancient authors who supply certain biographical data concerning the life and the work o f Aristotle, are constantly referred to throughout Chapters I-X V II. Hence, there is no need here to recite all their names, their individual contributions and their different attitudes towards Aristotle—attitudes which range all the way from uncritical but deliberate encomia bordering on near-deification, to spiteful and derogatory slander born o f enmity, prejudice or plain ignorance. It must be borne in mind, however, that the earliest biographies o f Aristotle coincide with the beginnings o f Hellenistic biographical literature, that is, with a novel effort to report not merely the great achievements o f a prominent man but also to record some o f the minor details o f his personal life and personal experiences. One might also XXV

INTRODUCTION

speculate here whether the letters o f Theophrastus addressed to Nicanor,27 or the letters that were exchanged by Theophrastus and Eudemus o f Rhodes,28 contained accurate biographical data concerning Aristotle. Whenever we rely on, or make use of, ancient biographers in general, we must always realize how little we actually know about the manner and method by which they worked. Some biographers might have employed whatever sources or materials were available to them, others might have relied primarily on memory or plain hearsaytradition, and others, again, might have indulged in fanciful fabrica­ tions and fabulae. What is certain, however, is that these biographies o f Aristotle are not always reliable. Hence, many justifiable and justified disagreements have arisen among scholars as regards the historical worth o f these biographies. N ot a few o f these disagreements, it seems, may be attributed to the fact that some scholars are totally, or almost totally, committed to Quellenforschung, and nothing but Quellenforschung, as well as to endless, though not always productive, com­ parative studies o f texts. Other scholars, again, stubbornly insist that unless we are in possession o f explicit and presumably ‘ unchallengeable ’ historical evidence, we should refrain as much as possible from making any definite assertions whatever. Needless to say, this latter view, in the final analysis, would vitiate almost any form o f ancient history or historiography. It has already been pointed out that perhaps the most acceptable procedure in this frustrating impasse, acceptable to at least some scholars, are reasonable and educated conjectures or hypotheses based upon all available evidence. An intelligent and imaginative interpretation o f such fragmentary and, hence, inadequate, faulty and often contradictory evidence must be our alternative.29 Moreover, we might also draw certain inferences from otherwise known facts, general circumstances and from the broader historical (or political) situations or incidents. Such a procedure, which most certainly will not be accepted by every scholar, might, after all, be the best as well as the most promising approach among all possible approaches to an almost hopeless historical problem. Otherwise we might as well resign our­ selves, in a spirit o f an abject and uncompromisingly defeatist ‘ give-itall-up-philosophy,’ to the Socratic dictum: ‘ All I know is that I know nothing.’

xxvi

Chapter I

A Brief Account o f the (Lost) Vita Aristotelis o f Hermippus and o f the (Lost) Vita Aristotelis o f Ptolemy (-el-Garib)*

In recent years there has been a striking and most fruitful revival o f historical studies o f Aristotle and his philosophic work. W . Jaeger’s brilliant ‘ evolutionary thesis,’ first expounded in 19 12 1 and further elaborated in 1923,2 has stimulated and necessitated a veritable flood o f important scholarly investigations o f Aristotle’s life and writings. These investigations are by no means concluded.3 One o f the most significant by-products o f Jaeger’s ageless work was a renewed interest in the so-called Tost’ or ‘ exoteric’ compositions o f the young Aristotle.4 At the same time, it has been pointed out repeatedly and emphatically that in order to understand more adequately the development o f Aristotle’s philosophic thought, we must pay increased attention to the salient incidents in the life o f the Stagirite and also to the ancient biographical tradition concerning Aristotle.5 The following pages are an attempt to give a brief account or compressed overview o f what may be called the ‘ traditional ’ Vitae Aristotelis, namely, the lost Vita authored by the Peripatetic Hermippus o f Smyrna, and the lost Vita com­ posed by the Neo-Platonist Ptolemy, whom the Arabic biographers call Ptolemy-el-Garib. These two Vitae, which have been com­ piled in antiquity, survive in one form or another only through their respective ‘ derivatives’ or epitomes o f which we still possess a fair number. The more important biographies o f Aristotle,6 which have been handed down to us from antiquity, are: Diogenes Laertius, The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers V. 1 —3 5 ;7 the Vita Aristotelis Hesychii; 8 the Pseudo-Hesychius;9 the Vita Aristotelis Marciana;10 the Vita Aristotelis Vulgata;11 the VitaLascaris;12 the Vita Aristotelis Latina;13 the Vita Aristotelis Syriaca I (anonymous); 14 the Vita Aristotelis Syriaca II (anonymous);15 the Vita Aristotelis Arahica I (by An-N adim );16 the Vita Aristotelis Arabica II (by Al-Mubashir or Mubassir);17 the Vita Aristotelis Arabica III (by Al-Q ifti); 18 and the Vita Aristotelis Arabica IV (by Usaibia).19 All these Vitae in some ways are related to, or are more I

the

lost

Vitae Aristotelis

of

h er m ippu s

a n d

pt o l e m y

or less accurate abridgments of, either the Vita Aristotelis o f Hermippus or the Vita Aristotelis o f Ptolemy-el-Garib. An attempt shall be made here to reconstruct the essential content or outline o f these two basic Vitae with the help o f their surviving ‘ derivatives ’ or epitomes. Such an undertaking, however, is a purely tentative effort based on much conjecture and many hypotheses. According to C. A. Brandis, E. Zeller, F. Susemihl, E. Heitz, W . Christ, F. Littich, W . Jaeger, W . D. Ross, L. Robin, I. During and others,20 Hermippus—the Peripatetic, the disciple o f Callimachus and the justly famed librarian at Alexandria (towards the end o f the third century B.C.)— must be considered the main, though by no means the sole, source for the biographical notes found in Diogenes Laertius. It has been claimed by some scholars that as a librarian at the Alexandrian Museum this Hermippus had at his disposal ample biographical materials about Aristotle. In the year 306 B.C., when all ‘ alien’ or ‘ subversive’ philosophers were threatened with banishment from Athens by the decree o f Demetrius Poliorcetes,21 Ptolemy Soter, the King o f Egypt, invited Theophrastus to come to Egypt and also to transfer the Peripatetic School together with its library to Alexandria. Although Theophrastus declined this invitation, two o f his disciples or colleagues in the Peripatus, Straton o f Lampsacus and Demetrius o f Phaleron, for a short period o f time actually went to Egypt.22 Un­ doubtedly, these two men brought to Alexandria some o f the writings o f the Peripatetics, including probably some o f Aristotle’s compositions or, at least, notes and excerpts from his works. It is also known that at the time o f his death (288-87 or 287-86 B.C.) Theophrastus bequeathed the library o f the Peripatus, including the writings o f Aristotle, to Neleus o f Scepsis.23 Neleus (or his heirs) subsequently might have sold parts o f this library or ‘ collection’ to Ptolemy Philadelphus, the successor o f Ptolemy Soter.24 All this would indicate that in the course o f the third century B.C., Alexandria had become one o f the great centers o f Aristotelian and Peripatetic scholarship as well as the repository for many Aristotelian and Peripatetic works. Such a situation, in turn, enabled Hermippus to draw much reliable information concerning the life and works o f Aristotle from the materials which had accumulated in Alexandria. Moreover, Hermippus himself was considered a painstakingly objective and conscientious scholar whose statements could unquestionably be taken at face value. This highly idealized picture, which, among other matters, is based on the entirely unsupported presumption that many o f Aristotle’s 2

the lost

Vitae Aristotelis o f h e r m i p p u s a n d p t o l e m y

writings had reached Alexandria and that Hermippus was a dis­ passionate as well as objective reporter, was shattered by I. During. On the strength o f his detailed and searching studies, During, in opposition to many scholars, reached the well-founded conclusion that Hermippus’ biographical reports were uncritical accounts, heavily slanted in favor o f Aristotle.25 In keeping with the general literary tendencies o f the time (which were concerned primarily with enter­ taining and amusing one’s readers), Hermippus, according to During, concocted a strange melange o f fact and fiction, history and anecdote, truth and gossip, praise and slander. To be sure, Hermippus’ biography contains many items which are correct, or almost correct. In accord with a widespread Hellenistic trend, however, it is also replete with many fanciful stories devoid o f all foundations in fact. Moreover, it is by no means certain that any o f the intramural, ‘ esoteric’ or doctrinal late writings o f Aristotle, provided they were actually and in toto authored by the Stagirite, ever reached Alexandria during the fourth and third centuries B .C ., although it will have to be admitted that some o f his ‘ exoteric’ early compositions were known there. According to tradition, after the death o f Theophrastus (c. 286 B.C.) the ‘ esoteric’ works were carried to Scepsis by Neleus o f Scepsis, where they were gradually lost. During believes that Hermippus’ most important contribution (and, perhaps, least credible addition) to the biographical tradition concerning Aristotle was his determined effort to present Aristotle as the true and sole founder o f the Peripatetic school. Among the many and, in all likelihood, fanciful stories he invented, probably the most conspicuous was the legend, subsequently widely accepted (and widely exploited), that Aristotle seceded from the Academy and from Plato’s basic teachings while Plato was still alive.26 This story was invented and propagated by a Peripatetic, and intended to demonstrate the original philosophic genius o f Aristotle which allegedly developed in complete independence o f Plato and the Academy. Hermippus might have relied here on a report, also found in Aristoxenus and others, that a few brash young men (members o f the Academy?) ‘ revolted’ against Plato and, in a spirit o f defiant antagonism, started a rival school o f their own. Hermippus apparently identified these ‘ rebels’ with Aristotle,27 although there exists no evidence that the latter participated in this ‘ revolt’ or that such a revolt ever took place. Such a substitution, however, seems to have suited Hermippus and his intent to depict the young Aristotle as a wholly independent and completely original philosopher who owed nothing to Plato and who already as a young man was able to establish an independent school o f 3

the lo st

Vitae Aristotelis o f h e r m i p p u s a n d p t o l e m y

philosophy in Athens. It is also possible that some later authors or biographers misinterpreted or distorted the fact that during Plato’s third sojourn in Syracuse in 361-60 B.C ., Heracleides o f Pontus, but not Aristotle, took Plato’s place in the Academy by becoming the ‘ acting scholarch,’ thus temporarily ‘ replacing’ (or ‘ displacing’) Plato. When attempting to recast some o f the main features o f Hermippus’ Vita Aristotelis, we must always bear in mind, however, that with the exception o f the very complex Vita Aristotelis o f Diogenes Laertius and some parts o f the Vita Hesychii, all surviving Vitae Aristotelis, in the main, go back to Ptolemy (-el-Garib) rather than to Hermippus. It is more than likely, however, that Ptolemy (or his sources) to some extent is also influenced by Hermippus’ Vita, although the degree o f this influence can no longer be determined. Hence, it would appear that any attempt to reconstruct the basic contents o f Hermippus’ Vita Aristotelis will have to rely almost exclusively on Diogenes Laertius. During has suggested a tentative and conjectural sketch o f the main features that were characteristic o f the likely contents o f Hermippus’ original biography o f Aristotle.28 Implementing During’s suggestions, it may be assumed, as some o f the other Vitae o f Diogenes Laertius indicate, that ancient biographies o f philosophers seem to have followed a general pattern. They recite, (i) the name o f the philosopher; (ii) the name o f his father, but rarely that o f his mother; (iii) sometimes the ‘ social position’ and occupation o f the father; (iv) the place o f birth o f the philosopher; (v) the time o f his birth; (vi) sometimes the more remote ancestry o f the father and occasionally that o f the mother; (vii) the philosopher’s schooling and his teacher or teachers; (viii) his ‘ intellectual qualities’ ; (ix) his physical appearance and physical peculiarities; (x) his travels; (xi) his ‘ social connections’ ; (xii) some­ times his ‘ family status ’ ; (xiii) his public or political activities; (xiv) his scholarly activities and achievements; (xv) bits o f general information; (xvi) some particular events in his life; (xvii) some particular honors bestowed upon him or some unusual misfortunes that befell him; (xviii) sometimes his last will and testament or his last sayings; (xix) his death; (xx) a list o f the works he wrote; (xxi) his most distinguished pupils; and (xxii) a summary o f his philosophic teachings. Naturally, not every ancient biography follows this pattern, mentions all the fact we have indicated or observes the order suggested above. In keeping with this general pattern, it may be presumed that Hermippus’ Vita Aristotelis probably contained the following bits o f information: descent and family o f Aristotle, including the name o f his father (Nicomachus), that o f his mother (Phaestis), that o f his (younger?) 4

the lo st

Vitae Aristotelis o f h e r m i p p u s a n d p t o l e m y

brother (Arimnestus) and that o f his (older ?) sister (Arimneste); the story that the father descended from the Homeric Asclepius, through Machaon and Machaon’s son Nicomachus and perhaps through another Nicomachus (?), and that the mother, too, was an Asclepiade (DL V. i ) ; 29 that Aristotle’s paternal ancestor originally came from the island o f Andros, while those o f the mother came from Chalcis on the island o f Euboea: Aristotle’s place o f birth (Stagira) and the date o f his birth (DL V. i ) ; an excursion into the flattering fact that the father, Nicomachus, was the personal physician as well as a close friend or intimate advisor o f King Amyntas III o f Macedonia, the father o f King Philip and the grandfather o f Alexander (DL V. i ) ; 30 Aristotle’s general schooling as a young boy and his later training in philosophy, as well as his stay at the Academy under Plato’s personal tutelage (DL V. 1-2) ;31 the story that in keeping with his unsurpassed intellec­ tual qualities, Aristotle was the ‘ most genuine’ and most talented disciple o f Plato (ibid,);32 Aristotle’s personal appearance (ibid.);33 Aristotle’s secession from the Academy during Plato’s lifetime, demonstrating his intellectual originality (DL V. 2);34 the metaphor about Aristotle’s spurning Plato ‘ as colts kick their mother who bore them’ (ibid.);35 Aristotle’s alleged ingratitude towards Plato;36 Speusippus’ rise as the new scholarch o f the Academy after the death o f Plato (DL V. 2 ) ;37 Aristotle’s rivalry with Isocrates (and Xenocrates), and the beginning o f Aristotle’s independent course o f lectures on rhetoric and other systematic topics (DL V. 3);38 Aristotle’s departure from Athens (in 348-47B.C.) to join Hermias o f Atarneus (ibid.);39 Aristotle’s marriage to Pythias, the daughter or niece o f Hermias, the birth o f his daughter (Pythias) and his relations with Herpyllis, who bore him a son, Nicomachus (ibid., derived in part from Timaeus or Timotheus ?);40 the death o f Hermias (DL V. 6) and Callisthenes’ encomium o f Hermias41 as well as Aristotle’s hymn in honor o f Hermias (DL V. 7 );42 Aristotle’s epigram on Hermias (DL V. 6) ;43 Aristotle’s sojourn in Macedonia at the personal request o f King Philip and his tutorship o f Alexander (DL V. 4 );44 Aristotle’s request that Philip (or Alexander) rebuild Stagira (ibid.); 45 Aristotle’s composition o f a code o f laws for the restored city o f Stagira (ibid.); 46 that for these services Aristotle was greatly honored by the people o f Stagira;47 that despite the fact that Aristotle was Plato’s ‘ most genuine’ disciple (DL V. 1), Xenocrates became scholarch o f the Academy after the death o f Speusippus and during Aristotle’s absence in Macedonia as the Athenian envoy to King Philip (DL V. 2 );48 Aristotle’s return to Athens, leaving behind his nephew Callisthenes as his ‘ successor’ at the 5

the lo st

Vitae Aristotelis o f h e r m i p p u s a n d p t o l e m y

court o f Alexander (DL V. 4 -5 );49 that upon his return from Mace­ donia, Aristotle established his own independent school in the Lyceum because Xenocrates had been made the scholarch o f the Academy (DL V. 2 ) ;50 Aristotle’s twelve (or thirteen) year sojourn in Athens as the head o f his own school (DL V. 5 ) ;51 Aristotle’s indictment for impiety by Eurymedon and his flight to Chalcis (ibid.);52 some bitter remarks by Aristotle on the occasion o f his flight from Athens;53 the several stories about the cause o f his death in Chalcis (DL V. 6 );54 Aristotle’s age (sixty-two or in his sixty-third year) at the time o f his death, and his age (sixteen or in his seventeenth year) at the time o f his entrance into the Academy (DL V. 9 -10 );55 the story that he selected his successor (Theophrastus) in the Lyceum ;56 Theocritus’ o f Chios epigram on Aristotle (D L V . n ) ; 57 Timon’s epigram on Aristotle (ibid.); Aristotle’s last will and testament (DL V. n - 1 6 ) ; 58 some anecdotes about Aristotle credited to Lycon Pythagoraeus (D L V . 16 ) ;59 a list o f Aristotle’s writings (DL V. 2 2 -7 );60 and possibly some o f the ‘ sayings ’ that were subsequently ascribed to Aristotle (DL V. 17-22). It will be noted that Hermippus apparently cited as his authori­ ties Eumelus and Bryon (or Ambryon or Bryson?) from whom he quoted Theocritus o f Chios, Timaeus, Timotheus (unless the latter two authors are one and the same person), Lycon and Timon. But we have no assurance whatever that he cites all the sources from which he derived his information, or even his main source,61 or that he quotes them correctly and impartially. This attempt at recapturing the main contents o f Hermippus’ Vita Aristotelis is purely tentative and highly conjectural. It is, as has been shown, a sort o f proposal for a general ‘ table o f contents ’ which does not necessarily follow the sequence observed by Hermippus. Neither does it purport to contain every bit o f information relayed by Hermippus. Despite O. Gigon’s occasional and penetrating disagreements,62 I. Diiring’s learned efforts to reconstruct the essential content o f Hermippus’ Vita Aristotelis must be considered in the main eminently successful. It might have been helpful, however, if During would have attempted to integrate into his reconstruction also Ptolemy’s Vita Aristotelis (as transmitted to us by the Vita Marciana, the Vita Latina and the Vita Vulgata, as well as by the Syriac and Arabic Vitae Aristotelis).63 The statement that Aristotle was instrumental in the restoration o f Stagira64 or that he was the lawgiver o f Stagira (DL V. 4), for instance, can also be found in Vita Marciana 17, in I Vita Syriaca 7 (only that he was the lawgiver o f Stagira), in I Vita Arabica (An-Nadim) 13, in 6

the lo st

Vitae Aristotelis o f h e r m i p p u s a n d p t o l e m y

I I Vita Arabica (Al-Mubashir) 27, and in IV Vita Arabica (Usaibia) 25. Hence, it is fair to assume that these statements had been contained in the Vita o f Ptolemy. At this point one may wonder to what extent Ptolemy also relied on Hermippus. There exists evidence that he did so directly or, at least, that he made use o f a source or sources which ultimately go back to Hermippus.65 In complete opposition to the general views held by the vast majority o f scholars, P. Moraux vigorously advanced the far-reaching thesis that a Vita Aristotelis o f Ariston o f Ceos, the scholarch o f the Peripatus towards the end o f the third century B.C., rather than the biography o f Hermippus, constitutes the main source o f information used by Diogenes Laertius.66 Moraux observed that in his biographical sketch o f Straton o f Lampsacus, who was the successor o f Theophrastus in the scholarchate o f the Peripatus, Diogenes Laertius expressly mentions Ariston as his source and authority.67 As a matter o f fact, Ariston is quoted here as the source from which Diogenes Laertius derives his information about the last will and testament o f Straton o f Lampsacus. Relying on Diogenes Laertius V. 64, Moraux also insisted68 that Ariston o f Ceos not only wrote a History of the Peripatetic School,69 but also that he transmitted, perhaps in the form o f a ‘ Collection,’ the testaments o f Aristotle, Theophrastus, Straton o f Lampsacus and Lycon.70 In the opinion o f Moraux, these four testaments were not handed down separately but were part o f a major History of the Peripatetic School (or History of the Peripatetic Scholarchs), which contained a great deal o f biographical material concerning the members or scholarchs o f the School, including a ‘ life * o f Aristotle as well as lists or catalogues o f their writings.71 The fact that Diogenes Laertius’ account o f the Peripatetic school ends with Lycon is, according to Moraux, highly significant; it is a definite indication that the Alexandrian bio­ graphies, on which Diogenes Laertius relies, are under the spell o f the History of the Peripatetic School by Ariston o f Ceos, the successor o f Lycon in the scholarchate (in 226-5 B.C.), who wrote an account o f his predecessors.72 The theses advanced by P. Moraux were seriously challenged by I. During,73 who reaffirmed the traditional view that Hermippus constitutes Diogenes Laertius’ prime source o f information concerning the life and writings o f Aristotle. During made the following argu­ ments in favor o f Hermippus: (i) a considerable number o f ancient authors credit Hermippus with having composed a biography o f Aristotle, consisting o f several books;74 (ii) Hermippus authored the ‘ catalogue’ o f Theophrastus’ writings (probably in his Life of Theo­ 7

the

lost

Vitae Aristotelis

of

h er m ippu s

a n d

pto lem y

phrastus); 75 (iii) there are some ancient references to the differences between Hermippus’ catalogue o f Aristotelian writings and the catalogue o f Andronicus o f Rhodes.76 This in itself would indicate that already in antiquity there existed at least two major catalogues, namely, the one by Hermippus and a later one by Andronicus. But During conceded that it is impossible to ascertain fully whether Hermippus is the original author o f Diogenes Laertius’ list o f Aristotelian com­ positions. And (iv) the4stichometric method ’—the method o f reporting the sum total o f lines published by an author77—is definitely a method that must be traced back to the Alexandrian library (and Hermippus, though not Ariston o f Ceos, was a librarian at Alexandria).78 Since Diogenes Laertius uses this method in his accounts o f Aristotle and Theophrastus (as well as o f Speusippus and Xenocrates), his source must have been Hermippus rather than Ariston o f Ceos, who probably never employed this particular method o f stating the total literary output o f an author.79 I. During, however, admitted the impossibility o f establishing with certainty whether Hermippus was in fact the original source o f information (and the main authority) used by Diogenes Laertius or, to be more exact, the source from which the latter derived his catalogue o f Aristotelian writings and, for that matter, some o f his biographical data about Aristotle. However, since Hermippus was practically a contemporary o f Ariston o f Ceos, and since Hermippus’ biographical work in all likelihood was composed around the year 200 B.C., it is not impossible, During conjectured, that Hermippus used Ariston’s biog­ raphies o f the Peripatetic scholarchs (from Aristotle to Lycon), his 4Collection ’ o f their testaments,80 as well as some o f the anecdotes he (Ariston) had preserved.81 But the bulk o f Hermippus’ (and, hence, Diogenes Laertius’) information about Aristotle and his writings in all likelihood is based on materials that go back to the days o f the Early Peripatus and, perhaps, to the times o f Theophrastus himself.82 These materials, it must be assumed, gradually were collected in the Alexan­ drian library. B y consensus, the extant Vita Aristotelis Hesychii83 must be con­ sidered an abridged version o f a more detailed biography which originally might have constituted a part o f Hesychius’ Onomatologon. Although it is extremely difficult to reconstruct with any degree o f certitude the sources used by Hesychius o f Miletus for his Vita—a difficulty which is compounded by the fact that we possess only an abridgment o f this Vita—it is possible to establish some likely con­ nections between the Vita Hesychii and other extant Vitae. Thus it seems 8

the lo st

Vitae Aristotelis o f h e r m i p p u s a n d p t o l e m y

that Hesychius draws upon Hermippus (possibly through the inter­ mediary o f Diogenes Laertius); on Diogenes Laertius;84 on some Neo-Platonic Vitae Aristotelis (including perhaps the Vita Aristotelis o f Ptolemy)85 or on some other Neo-Platonic biographical materials; perhaps on Theocritus o f Chios;86 on Timaeus (probably through Hermippus via Diogenes Laertius); 87 perhaps on Apollodorus’ Chronicle for his chronology; and probably on Eumelus, as he is quoted in Diogenes Laertius.88 Hesychius’ ‘ catalogue’ o f Aristotle’s writings has been discussed and analyzed in great detail by P. Moraux.89 The first 139 titles seem to follow rather closely the list o f Hermippus as it is preserved by Diogenes Laertius. The remainder o f Hesychius’ ‘ cata­ logue ’ is probably a compilation from a variety o f sources that can no longer be accurately identified. It appears, however, that Hesychius did consult the list o f Aristotelian writings originally compiled by Andronicus o f Rhodes. With the sole exception o f Diogenes Laertius’ and Hesychius’ reports, all other extant biographies o f Aristotle, whether Greek, Latin, Syriac or Arabic, are generally held to have their ultimate source in the Vita Aristotelis o f Ptolemy. But, we possess no reliable information about this Ptolemy, who has been identified by many scholars with Ptolemy Chennos and whom the Arabic authors called Ptolemy-elGarib, that is, Ptolemy ‘ the Stranger.’ 90 Until quite recently this Ptolemy has also been considered a member o f the Alexandrian School o f Aristotelians (the ‘ Peripatus o f the Early Roman Empire’).91 This view, which was advanced by W . Christ and others, has been vigorously attacked by P. Moraux, who flatly denied that Ptolemy Chennos and Ptolemy-el-Garib, the author o f a Vita Aristotelis, were one and the same person.92 I. During likewise objected to this identification. He pointed out that the Vita Aristotelis o f Ptolemy is in essence a boundless and uncritical glorification o f Aristotle. As such, it is undoubtedly Neo-Platonic in its character and tendency.93 Our Ptolemy, During insisted, must have been a member o f Porphyry’s (232-33 to c. 310 a .d .) or Iamblichus’ (a pupil o f Porphyry) School o f Neo-Platonists.94 In brief, During insisted that we should discard the traditional but wholly unfounded identification o f our Ptolemy with Ptolemy Chennos. Moreover, During stated that Ptolemy’s Vita Aristotelis clearly indicates that its author was a Neo-Platonist; and that this Ptolemy wrote his Vita Aristotelis probably during the first half o f the fourth century a . d .95 Dissenting to some extent from the views held by P. Moraux,96 I. During also maintained97 that o f the Neo-Platonic Vita Aristotelis composed by Ptolemy, there exist three major Neo-Platonic abridg9

the lost

Vitae Aristotelis o f h e r m i p p u s a n d p t o l e m y

ments or epitomes, namely, the Vita Marciana, the Vita Vulgata and the Vita Latina 9S The two extant (anonymous) Syriac Vitae Aristotelis 99 which likewise are abridgments o f the Vita o f Ptolemy, belong to approximately the same period. The four extant Arabic Vitae Aristotelis100 ultimately go back to an Arabic translation o f an earlier Syriac translation o f an abridgment o f Ptolemy’s original biography.101 Hence, all these nine Vitae have a single common source: Ptolemy’s original Vita Aristotelis or, to be more exact, an epitome o f Ptolemy’s Vita. This is substantiated by the fact that the materials contained in these nine ‘ derivative’ Vitae, on the whole, are fairly uniform in their general tenor and basic content, although on occasion they manifest some noticeable differences o f detail. The dominant characteristics, tendencies and peculiarities o f Ptolemy’s Vita Aristotelis, as they are clearly reflected in its nine ‘ derivatives,’ may be seen in their boundless exaltation o f Aristotle—a typical Neo-Platonic feature. According to Ptolemy, Aristotle was held in highest esteem by all people with whom he came in contact, be they kings, conquerors, scholars or just plain folk. In contrast with other biographers, Ptolemy also makes ample use o f the so-called Tetters’ o f Aristotle,102 probably relies on Hermippus’ (or some other) chronology o f Aristotle’s life, and in all likelihood derives some o f his detailed information from the self-same Hermippus103 as well as from a number o f other biographers, historians or authors who unfortunately can no longer be identified. On the whole, Ptolemy manifests an unquestion­ able proclivity for carrying on extensive scholarly investigations. Whenever he refutes stories about Aristotle that might be damaging to the latter’s reputation or scholarly prestige, Ptolemy displays a certain critical acumen. But his boundless and uncritical admiration for Aristotle and his obviously encomiastic tendencies detract much from his reliability as a historical reporter. It appears, however, that, on the whole, his Vita is based on an adequate knowledge and mastery o f the biographical materials that were available during the early part o f the fourth century a .d . In the opinion o f the present author, barring perhaps a few minor details, I. During104 has made what appears to be a most successful and most convincing attempt to piece together the likely content o f Ptolemy’s Vita Aristotelis. During has done this in the form o f a ‘ collec­ tion o f materials’ culled from the nine Vitae Aristotelis which are ultimately based on this work o f Ptolemy.105 The Vita Aristotelis o f Ptolemy, it is safe to assume, contained Aristotle’s name and possibly the etymology o f his name,106 his 10

the lost

Vitae Aristotelis o f h e r m i p p u s a n d p t o l e m y

immediate family, that is, the name o f his father (Nicomachus) as well as that o f his mother (Phaestis),107 his descent,108 his birth place and the date o f his birth.109 His father, Nicomachus, was a physician and the court physician and close friend o f King Amyntas III o f Macedonia.110 It probably continued with a biography o f Aristotle: in his early youth, Aristotle received a ‘ liberal* and ‘ well-rounded’ education (and perhaps some training in medicine).111 After the death o f his father, Aristotle was brought to Athens by his ‘ guardian ’ Proxenus o f Atarneus to study, first under Isocrates112 and then under Plato in the Academy.113 This was done presumably on the advice o f the Delphic oracle or perhaps because Plato and Proxenus were personal friends.114 Aristotle joined the Academy at the age o f seventeen115 (or in his seventeenth year), while Eudoxus o f Cnidus was (acting) scholarch (7TpoGrdrrjs) during Plato’s absence in Syracuse.116 It is not true, as some have alleged, that he began the study o f philosophy only at the age o f thirty.117 In the beginning he took up rhetoric.118 After having completed his ‘ preliminary ’ or ‘ pre-philosophic ’ studies, he came under the personal tutelage o f Plato. He stayed with Plato and the Academy for about twenty years.119 While Plato’s pupil at the Academy, Aristotle studied ethics, politics, mathematics, physics and theology (metaphysics).120 During all this time he was on excellent terms with Plato, who admiringly referred to him as ‘ the great reader’ and ‘ the brain’ (vovs) or ‘ the intellect.’ 121 Because he made such a favorable impression on Plato, the latter insisted on instructing him personally, not wishing him to be taught by other (and lesser) teachers, as was the case with ordinary students.122 When Plato departed on his third journey to Syracuse, out o f respect and admiration for Aristotle’s great learning and many intellectual achievements, he made him (acting) scholarch o f the Academy during his absence.123 Aristotle valiantly and successfully defended Platonic rhetoric when it came under serious attack from some outsiders (Isocrates?).124 Aristotle also insisted upon the scholar’s right (and duty) to write down and publish his philosophic conviction— a right he defended even against Plato.125 Then probably followed a description o f Aristotle’s intellectual and moral qualities,126 as well as a report on his personal appearance.127 He was an avid reader o f books and a prodigious worker; he shunned empty talk,128 weighing every word before answering a question.129 He liked music (the liberal arts) and preferred the company o f mathe­ maticians and logicians.130 He was a most eloquent man, a most distinguished author and, after Plato, the most eminent among Greek 11

the lo st

Vitae Aristotelis o f h e r m i p p u s a n d p t o l e m y

philosophers.131 At the same time he was a good man, practicing good­ ness with a zest and displaying a genuine interest in the problems o f his fellow men.132 He was modest, unassuming and considerate;133 and he was moderate in his habits and restrained in his emotions.134 Aristotle was fair, a little bald-headed, o f a good figure, and rather bony. He had small bluish eyes, an aquiline nose, a small mouth, a broad chest, and a thick (or sparse) beard.135 He had two children, a girl and a boy, who were still quite young at the time o f his death.136 There were some ill-informed or slanderous persons who made it their task to malign Aristotle. They invented a host o f untrue stories about his unpleasant relations with and his flagrant ingratitude towards Plato.137 Then, in Ptolemy’s account probably followed detailed refutations o f some o f these unpleasant stories. On the contrary, Aristotle was a life-long admirer and friend o f Plato’s, as evidenced not only by the fact that he dedicated and inscribed an altar in honored memory o f Plato,138 but also by his letters in which he boasted o f having been a disciple o f the ‘ kingly’ Plato.139 After the death o f Plato, Speusippus became the new scholarch o f the Academy, although in the opinion o f many, Aristotle was the most outstanding disciple o f Plato and, hence, more than anyone else deserved to succeed him. After the death o f Speusippus, Xenocrates assumed the scholarchate because Aristotle was absent from Athens.140 Speusippus, aware o f Aristotle’s matchless talents and qualifications, asked the latter to return to the Academy and take charge o f the school.141 After the death o f Plato, Aristotle went to Hermias o f Atarneus,142 and after the death o f Hermias,143 King Philip o f Macedonia called him to Macedonia and made him the tutor o f Alexander.144 He was held in highest esteem at the Macedonian court, and many honors were bestowed upon him by Philip and his wife Olympias.145 When Alexander became king, Aristotle disassociated himself from the ruler.146 He returned to Athens,147 leaving Callisthenes with Alexander.148 Originally, he had intended to accompany Alexander on his Persian venture,149 but perturbed by unfavorable omens, he desisted and tried to persuade Alexander to call off the whole under­ taking.150 Aristotle returned to Athens after the conclusion o f the Persian W ar (after the start o f the Persian W ar?; after the suppression o f the Athenian revolt in 335 B.C. ?)151 or after the death o f Alexander (Philip).152 On his return, he rejoined the Academ y153 but soon left it again in order to found his own independent school in the Lyceum,154 which was also called the ‘ Peripatetic school.’ 155 There he had many 12

the lo st

Vitae Aristotelis o f h e r m i p p u s a n d p t o l e m y

disciples, among them not only persons distinguished for their scholarly accomplishments, learning, philosophic ability and nobility o f character as well as descent156 but also kings and princes.157 He wrote many books.158 At the same time he devoted himself to the promotion o f the Athenian commonweal159 and to the promotion o f happiness among men in general.160 He corresponded a great deal with kings and leading statesmen161 and had much influence among the great men o f his time, not only with King Philip but also with other potentates. He was honored and respected by the mighty o f this world. He carried on many diplomatic and statesmanlike negotiations with kings and rulers,162 thereby promoting peace and contentment among peoples.163 In particular he rendered many public services to the city o f Athens.164 He was also active as an oicistl6s and nomothetes,l66 not only o f Stagira, but o f other cities as well. Hence, upon Aristotle’s death, the grateful people o f Stagira brought his remains to Stagira167 and named their council house after him.168 Some Athenians likewise tried to honor him for the many public services he had rendered their city. They decreed that a stele with a commemorative inscription be set up in his honor on the Acropolis, but this action was foiled by the antagonism o f some thoughtless people.169 After the death o f Alexander and during the ensuing anti-Macedonian revolt in Athens, Aristotle was indicted by the hierophant Eurymedon for alleged impiety and for failing to worship the old gods.170 Eurymedon’s action was prompted primarily by jealousy and by an old (political) grudge against Aristotle.171 When Aristotle learned about Eurymedon’s indictment,172 he left the city o f his own accord before any official action was taken.173 He did so because he feared that the Athenians might do to him what they had previously done to Socrates.174 He also did not wish the Athenians to sin twice against philosophy.175 In addition, he confessed (in a letter to Antipater?) that it was difficult and even dangerous for a stranger (alien) to live in Athens.176 Quoting Homer’s Odyssey VII. 120, he also maintained that the city o f Athens was too crowded with sycophants (informers).177 No one interfered with Aristotle’s voluntary departure.178 It is not true, however, that Aristotle wrote a detailed defense against the charges made by Eurymedon.179 Aristotle withdrew to Chalcis on the island o f Euboea,180 moving into the home he had inherited from his mother or maternal ances­ tors.181 There he studied the flow o f the Euripus182 and wrote a book about this phenomenon.183 It was in Chalcis that he died at184 the age o f sixty-two.185 A swarm o f bees was found around the urn con13

t h e l o s t Vitae Aristotelis o f h e r m i p p u s a n d p t o l e m y

taining his ashes,186 an indication that he was a good and righteous man.187 This was probably followed by Aristotle’s last will and testament,188 and by a reference to his two children (Pythias and Nicomachus).189 He left a large estate and numerous servants190, and appointed Theo­ phrastus not only to succeed him in the scholarchate o f the Peripatus,191 but also made him one o f the executors o f his w ill.192 Then followed a list o f his more prominent disciples193 and probably some more statements to the effect that he was the friend and benefactor o f many individuals,194 o f many cities,195 o f Athens and the Athenians in particular,196 and o f the whole o f mankind.197 For his many noble and unselfish deeds, he was esteemed, honored and loved by King Philip (and his wife Olympias),198 by kings and princes in general,199 and by many cities and communities.200 After Plato, he was assuredly the greatest philosopher among the Greeks.201 The biography probably concluded with a (incomplete) list or catalogue o f Aristotle’s writings202 and perhaps with a cursory (and in all likelihood not too accurate) summary o f his main philosophic teachings.203 There might also have been a general chronology o f Aristotle’s life, apparently taken from Hermippus.204 In the light o f the surviving Vitae Aristotelis, which seem to depend to a large extent on Ptolemy’s Vita Aristotelis or on some abridgment o f Ptolemy’s Vita, not much more can reasonably and safely be said about Ptolemy’s biography. Ours is not a ‘ reconstruction’ or collection o f fragments, excerpts or doxographical reports in the traditional sense o f the term. It is, at best, a kind o f tentative and, in all likelihood, dis­ orderly as well as overly optimistic ‘ table o f probable main contents’ o f Ptolemy’s Vita Aristotelis. Frequently it is based on conjectures lacking precision and ultimate confirmation. Such a tentative ‘ table o f probable main contents,’ which in all likelihood is neither exhaustive nor always accurate, must limit itself to some fairly vague statements. For, at this point, we cannot possibly know the precise and detailed content or the exact wording o f Ptolemy’s Vita, or even the particular order or sequence in which he originally presented his materials. One thing, however, stands out clearly: Ptolemy’s Vita, no matter what one might think about its historical accuracy or scholarship, is without doubt a biography which apparently attempts, by its numerous encomia, to suppress, gloss over or refute any and all unfavorable views or reports concerning Aristotle. To what extent these encomiastic efforts affect the accuracy and, hence, the reliability o f Ptolemy’s account is not always easy to assess. Moreover, it seems to emphasize,

14

t h e l o s t Vitae Aristotelis o f h e r m i p p u s a n d p t o l e m y

at least by implication, the ‘ many political and public activities or involvements * o f Aristotle, as well as the important role he played in the rise o f Macedonia as a great power during the reign o f King Philip (359-36 B .C .).

15

Chapter II

The Vita Aristotelis o f Dionysius of Halicarnassus*

In his Vita Aristotelis (or Chronologia Vitae Aristotelis), which because o f its brevity and alleged unimportance has been sadly neglected, Dionysius o f Halicarnassus writes: ‘ Aristotle was the son o f Nico­ machus, who traced his ancestry and his profession to Machaon, the son o f Asclepius. His mother, Phaestis, descended from one o f the colonists who led the [Greek] settlers from Chalcis to Stagira. Aristotle was born in the 99th Olympiad, when Diotrephes was archon in Athens [384-83 B .C .]. Hence, he was three years older than Demos­ thenes. During the archonship o f Polyzelus [367-66 B .C .], and after his father had died, he went to Athens, being then eighteen years o f age. Having been introduced to the company o f Plato, he spent a period o f twenty years with the latter. On the death o f Plato, during the archon­ ship o f Theophilus [348-47 B .C .], he went to Hermias, the tyrant o f Atarneus. After spending three years with Hermias, during the archon­ ship o f Eubulus [345-44 B .C .], he repaired to Mytilene. From there he went to the court o f Philip [of Macedonia] during the archonship o f Pythodorus [343-42 B .C .], and spent eight years there as the tutor o f Alexander. After the death o f Philip [in 336 B .C .], during the archonship o f Evaenetus [335-34 B .C .], he returned to Athens, where he taught in the Lyceum for a space o f twelve years. In the thirteenth year [of his second stay in Athens], after the death o f Alexander [in 323 B.C.] and during the archonship o f Cephisodorus [323-22 B .C .], he retreated to Chalcis where he fell ill and died at the age o f sixty-three/1 In order to understand the particular Vita Aristotelis o f Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, which is contained in a letter addressed to Ammaeus, we must bear in mind that Dionysius is objecting here principally to certain allegations made by his friend, Ammaeus. This Ammaeus apparently had informed Dionysius that ‘ a certain Peripatetic philoso­ pher, in his desire to honor and exalt Aristotle, the founder o f the Peripatetic school, undertook to demonstrate that it was from Aristotle that Demosthenes had learned the rules o f rhetoric which he subse16

the

Vita Aristotelis o f d i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s

quently applied to his own orations; and that it was through his adherence to the precepts laid down by Aristotle that he later became the foremost o f all orators/2 ‘M y first impression/ Dionysius replies, ‘ was that this brash man [the “ certain Peripatetic philosopher” ] who made this statement [that Demosthenes was the pupil o f Aristotle] was a person o f no consequence.. . . But on learning his true name I found him to be a person whom I respect on account o f his high personal qualities and literary merits. Hence, I did not know what to think, and after careful reflection I came to the conclusion that this matter needed more thorough discussion. For it is possible that I had failed to realize the true facts, and that this man had not uttered sheer nonsense. I wished, therefore, either to abandon my previous position on this matter i f I could be convinced that the Rhetoric o f Aristotle preceded the orations o f Demosthenes, or to induce the person who had adopted this view and is about to put it into writing to change his opinion before submitting his treatise to the general public/3 [‘ In short, my dear Ammaeus/] Dionysius continues, ‘ you have furnished me with a strong motive to search out the truth. You have challenged me to state the arguments by which I have convinced myself that it was not until Demosthenes had reached his peak, and had delivered his most celebrated orations, that Aristotle composed his Rhetoric. Furthermore, you seem to be right in advising me not to rest my case on mere “ circumstantial evidence” and plain hypotheses or bits o f extraneous evidence—for this sort o f proof is never truly convincing or persuasive—but rather to call upon Aristotle himself to bear witness. . . as to the truth o f my position. . . / 4 Dionysius then gives us a precis o f his findings: ‘ The above mentioned story (namely, that Aristotle had a decisive influence on the rhetoric o f Demosthenes), my dear Ammaeus, is simply not true. The Rhetoric o f Aristotle, which was published at a fairly late date, did not influence the composition o f Demosthenes’ orations. These orations were indebted to other teachers.. . . I shall endeavor to demonstrate that at the time Aristotle wrote his Rhetoric, Demosthenes was already at the height o f his public career and had delivered his most celebrated orations. . . and was famous throughout the Hellenic world for his eloquence. And perhaps I ought first o f all to recite the facts I have gleaned from the current histories (Koival iaropiai), which the compilers o f biographies have bequeathed to u s.. . .’ 5 The ‘ certain Peripatetic philosopher/ who apparently started the tradition that Demosthenes’ rhetorical excellence had been decisively influenced by the precepts laid down by Aristotle, has been identified

17

the

Vita Aristotelis o f d i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s

as Critolaus o f Phaselis, a member o f the Peripatetic school.6 The theory advanced by Critolaus was propagated by others. It received renewed attention about the year 25 B.C., the approximate date o f Dionysius’ First Epistle to Ammaeus. In order to disprove this thesis, Dionysius attempts to demonstrate in his Epistle, first, that the Aristo­ telian Rhetoric was written at a fairly late stage o f the Stagirite’s literary activity;7 and second, that the chronology o f Aristotle’s life simply precludes the possibility that he should have molded the rhetorical talents o f Demosthenes. In short, Dionysius’ Vita Aristotelis is meant to disprove the contentions o f Critolaus and his followers by showing that these contentions involve a fatal anachronism.8 Although it is almost impossible to ascertain the source or sources used by Dionysius for his Vita Aristotelis—he refers rather indiscrimi­ nately to some ‘ current histories,’ 9 to ‘ compilers o f biographies’ 10 and to ‘ biographers o f Aristotle’ 11—it is probable that, like Diogenes Laertius centuries later,12 he consulted the Chronicle o f Apollodorus13 or an even more remote source used by Apollodorus and then added some bits o f information as well as some modifications o f his own. (It has been claimed that the text o f Dionysius is independent o f the text cited in Diogenes Laertius (DL V. 9-10), and that both texts ultimately go back to Philochorus.)14 After having recited the main data o f Aristotle’s life, Dionysius concludes: ‘ Such, then, are the historical facts as they have been transmitted to us by the biographers o f this man (scil., Aristotle).’ 15 Apollodorus’ chronology o f the life o f Aristotle, which bears a close resemblance to Dionysius’ chronology, reads as follow s: ‘ Aristotle was bom in the first year o f the 99th Olympiad [384-83 B .C .]. He attached himself to Plato and remained in his company for twenty years, having become his pupil at the age o f seventeen. He went to Mytilene during the archonship o f Eubulus, that is, in the fourth year o f the 108th Olympiad [345-44 B .C .]. When Plato died in the first year o f that Olympiad, during the archonship o f Theophilus [348-47 B .C .], he went to Hermias and stayed with him for three years. During the archonship o f Pythodotus, that is, in the second year o f the 109th Olympiad [343-42 B .C .], he journeyed to the court o f Philip [of Macedonia], Alexander then being in his fifteenth year. He arrived in Athens during the second year o f the m t h Olympiad [335-34 B .C .], and he taught in the Lyceum for thirteen years. He then retired to Chalcis in the third year o f the 114th Olympiad [322-21 B .C .], and died there a natural death at theageof about sixty-three during the archonship o f Philocles [322-21 B .C .], in the same year in which Demosthenes died in Calauria.’ 16 18

the

Vita Aristotelis o f d i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s

A comparison o f Apollodorus’ (Diogenes’) text and that o f Dionysius reveals some slight differences between these two chronicles. Apollodorus maintains that Aristotle was born in the first year o f the 99th Olympiad (384-83 B.C .), while Dionysius relates that he was born in the 99th Olympiad, during the archonship o f Diotrephes (384-83 B.C.), adding that ‘ he was therefore three years older than Demos­ thenes.’ This latter addition, which in all likelihood is incorrect— Demosthenes was born probably in 384-83—is a personal observation o f Dionysius and is in keeping with the main topic o f his Epistle. While Apollodorus says that Aristotle was seventeen years o f age when ‘ he attached himself to Plato,’ he fails to mention the exact year in which this event took place. Dionysius, on the other hand, insists that this happened ‘during the archonship o f Polyzelus [367-66 B .C .], after the death o f his father, when he was eighteen years old.’ In the light o f the generally accepted chronology o f Aristotle’s life, Dionysius would have done better to write, ‘ when he was in his eighteenth year.’ Aristotle, it is commonly held, was born during the second half (July-September) o f 384 B .C ., that is, during the early part o f Diotrephes’ archonship (384-83 B.C .). He arrived in Athens in the year 367 B.C. Philochorus insists that he arrived during the latter part o f Nausigenes’ archonship (368-67 B .C .), that is, during the first half o f the year 367 B .C . 17 Dionysius, on the other hand, reports that this happened during the early part o f Polyzelus’ archonship (367-66 B .C .). This latter report then, would indicate that he arrived about October 367 B.C. after he had celebrated his seventeenth birthday. Hence, according to Dionysius, Aristotle was in his eighteenth year—not eighteen years old—when he went to Athens, while according to Philochorus, whose dating is widely accepted, he was only sixteen years o f age, that is, in his seventeenth year. The only discrepancy between Philochorus and Dionysius is whether Aristotle went to Athens before or after Ju lyOctober o f 367 B.C., that is, before or after the month o f his birth. Both Apollodorus (Diogenes Laertius) and Dionysius agree that Aristotle stayed with Plato for about twenty years (367-48-47 B .C .); that Plato died during the archonship o f Theophilus (348-47 B.C .), in the first year o f the 108th Olympiad (Apollodorus); and that, after Plato’s death, Aristotle went to Hermias o f Atarneus with whom he stayed three years. According to Dionysius, Aristotle repaired to Mytilene during the archonship o f Eubulus (345-44 B .C .). For some unknown reason, Diogenes Laertius (Apollodorus?) mentions the journey to Mytilene, which he likewise places in the fourth year o f the 108th Olympiad (345-44 B.C .), that is, during the archonship o f 19

the

Vita Aristotelis o f d i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s

Eubulus, before he relates the death o f Plato and Aristotle’s sojourn in Atarneus. Apollodorus and Dionysius also concur that during the archonship o f Pythodotus (343-42 B .C .)— Apollodorus adds, ‘ in the second year o f the 109th Olympiad [343-42 B .C .] ’— Aristotle proceeded to the court o f King Philip o f Macedonia. But while Dionysius records that he ‘ spent there eight years as the tutor o f Alexander,’ Apollodorus only reports that at the time o f Aristotle’s arrival in Macedonia ‘ Alexander [who was born in 356 B .C .] was in his fifteenth year.’ 18 It will also be noted that Apollodorus does not mention the story that Aristotle became the tutor o f Alexander.19 Dionysius claims that after the death o f Philip (in the summer o f 336 B .C .), Aristotle returned to Athens during the archonship o f Evaenetus (335-34 B .C .), while Apollodorus insists that he did so during the second year o f the m t h Olympiad (335-34 B .C .). Dionysius main­ tains that after his return to Athens, Aristotle taught in the Lyceum for twelve years, while Apollodorus (or Diogenes Laertius) speaks o f thirteen years. This discrepancy can easily be explained: Apollodorus (or Diogenes Laertius) apparently includes in his calculation the year 323 B .C . —the year in which Aristotle fled from Athens. This figure would also indicate that Aristotle arrived in Athens late in 335 B .C ., that is, after Athens had made its abject surrender to Alexander, following an abortive revolt in the summer o f 335 B.C. According to Dionysius, Aristotle retired to Chalcis ‘ in the thirteenth year [of his second sojourn in Athens— 323 B .C .], during the archonship o f Cephisodorus [323-22 B .C .]. There he fell ill and died at the age o f sixty-three [that is, in his sixty-third year (322 B .C .)].’ Apollodorus (Diogenes Laertius) relates that ‘ in the third year o f the 1 14th Olympiad [322-21 B .C .], Aristotle retired to Chalcis and there he died a natural death at the age o f about sixty-three, during the archonship o f Philocles [322-21 B .C .].’ Obviously, the reference to the third year o f the 114th Olympiad and the archonship o f Philocles (322-21 B.C.) does not refer to Aristotle’s flight from Athens in 323 B .C . , 20 but rather to the date o f his death in 322 B .C ., which occurred during the early part o f Philocles’ archonship. In transcribing his source, Diogenes Laertius (or Apollo­ dorus) probably committed an error.21 All these dates indicate that Aristotle died during the latter half (July-October) o f the year 322 B.C. The major surviving biographies o f Aristotle agree that he was the son o f Nicomachus and his wife Phaestis,22 although I VS 3 erroneously calls his mother Parysatis,23 TV VA 3 calls her Phaestias, and I I VS does not mention her at all. They also concur that he was born in Stagira.24 Dionysius abridges the lineage o f Nicomachus. It appears that Aristotle’s 20

the

Vita Aristotelis

of

d io n y siu s

of

H

alicarnassus

father, Nicomachus, was the descendant o f another Nicomachus, who was the son o f Machaon (the famous physician), who in turn was the son o f Asclepius.25 His mother, Phaestis, Dionysius relates, ‘ was a descendant from one o f the colonists who led the [Greek] settlers from Chalcis to Stagira.’ 26 But Dionysius does not claim, as some o f the other biographers do,27 that she too was a descendant o f Asclepius. Neither does Dionysius relate that the father, Nicomachus, was the personal physician, as well as the intimate friend and trusted advisor, o f King Amyntas III o f Macedonia.28 He implies, however, that Nicomachus was a physician when he reports that this Nicomachus ‘ traced his ancestry and his profession to Machaon.’ The fact that Aristotle’s father, Nicomachus, died while Aristotle was still rather young is also hinted at in VM 3, V V 2, VL 3 and IV VA 3; and the story that he went to Athens (or was brought to Athens by his ‘ guardian’ Proxenus) when he was a young man can be found in all the other Vitae Aristotelis. Some o f these Vitae insist, however, that he was then seventeen years o f age.29 Dionysius does not mention the story, found in V M 5, VV 4, VL 5 and IV VA 3, that he went to Athens and joined the school o f Plato on the advice o f the Pythian oracle.30 Neither does Dionysius relate the unusual (and perhaps spurious) story, told only in II VA 3, that his father, Nicomachus, brought him to Athens when he was only eight years old, placing him ‘ in a school o f poets, orators, and schoolmasters,’ and that Aristotle stayed in this ‘ school ’ for nine years until, at the age o f seventeen, he attached himself to Plato.31 Like VM 5, V V ^ VL 5, D L V. 9, I V S ^ I VA 4, II VA 10, III VA and I V VA 3, Dionysius insists that Aristotle stayed with Plato twenty years.32 Dionysius notes that ‘ upon Plato’s death. . . Aristotle went to Hermias,’ with whom he spent three years.33 Aristotle’s sojourn in Mytilene in 345-44 B.C., however, is mentioned only by Dionysius and Diogenes Laertius (Apollodorus).34 While Dionysius refers only briefly to the fact that in the year 343-42 B.C. Aristotle proceeded to Macedonia where he spent eight years as the tutor o f Alexander,35 some o f the other ancient biographers make a great deal o f Aristotle’s stay in Macedonia.36 In this they apparently follow a Hellenistic tradition o f connecting famous men with some important dynasty. Whether Aristotle was actually the preceptor o f Alexander for a period o f eight years is open to doubt.37 Dionysius, who seems to connect Aristotle’s departure from Mace­ donia with the death o f Philip (summer o f 336 B.C.), insists that the Stagirite returned to Athens in 335-34 B.C .38 The other biographers arc 21

the

Vita Aristotelis o f d i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s

a little more explicit. Thus D L V. 4-5, which also insinuates that the relations between Aristotle and Alexander had become somewhat strained, maintains that when Aristotle thought that he had stayed long enough with Alexander, he departed for Athens, ‘ leaving behind his nephew Callisthenes/ I I VA 19 and IV VA 6 insist that he stayed with Alexander until the latter invaded Persia (in 334 B .C .). Some o f the Arabic Vitae Aristotelis39 once more try to explain Aristotle’s departure by reporting that when Philip had died and Alexander had succeeded him to the throne o f Macedonia, the latter soon marched o ff to Persia. Freed o f all ‘ responsibilities,’ Aristotle simply disassociated himself from the affairs o f the king and thus was able to return to Athens.40 In Athens, according to Dionysius, Aristotle taught at the Lyceum for a period o f twelve years. D L V. 5 remarks that, after leaving Macedonia, Aristotle came to Athens and was the head o f his school for thirteen years.41 I I VS 6, I I VA 3 and IV VA 34 relate that during these years he had many notable disciples; and I I VA 35 also reports that during this particular period he wrote many books, about one hundred, on a great many philosophic subjects.42 This is about all that the ancient biographers have to say about what traditionally have been considered the most important and productive years o f Aristotle’s life. Dionysius concludes his account by stating that in the thirteenth year o f his teaching in the Lyceum, that is, after the death o f Alexander (June 13, 323 B.C.) and during the archonship o f Cephisodorus (323-22 B .C .), Aristotle ‘ retired to Chalcis [on the island o f Euboea] where he fell ill and died at the age o f sixty-three’ or, better, in his sixty-third year, thus making it appear that he died during the archonship o f Cephisodorus rather than during the archonship o f Philocles (322-21 B .C .), as it is commonly held. Dionysius neglects, however, to supply any reason for Aristotle’s sudden retreat to Chalcis. On the strength o f the available evidence found in some o f the other ancient Vitae Aristotelis, the following might be cited as the real reason for Aristotle’s rather hasty departure from Athens in the summer (or early fall) o f 323 B .C .: his status as a ‘ Macedonian resident alien’ and his close ties with the Macedonian royal house as well as with Antipater, the lieutenant o f Alexander in Europe, made him immediately suspect in the eyes o f the Athenians who considered him a philo-Macedonian, if not a Macedonian ‘ political agent’ stationed in Athens to report on the political developments throughout Greece. When the news o f Alexander’s death reached Athens in the summer o f 323, the city once again revolted against her Macedonian overlords and Aristotle no longer felt safe in Athens. Hence, it was actually on account o f political 22

the

Vita Aristotelis o f d i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s

pressure (as it had happened once before in the year 348 B .C .) 43 that he had to leave Athens.44 D L V. 5, I I VA 20 and IV VA 7 relate that the hierophant Eurymedon45 formally charged Aristotle with impiety, and that Aristotle, in order to avoid the fate which befell Socrates in 399 B.C., fled to Chalcis.46 V M 43, VL 45-6, D L V. 6, V. 10 (Apollodorus), I VS 8, I I VS 7 ,1VA 15, I I VA 23, III VA and IV VA 1 1 imply that Aristotle died a natural death in Chalcis.47 It is commonly held that Aristotle died at the age o f sixty-two, that is, in his sixty-third year, although I VS 8 erroneously claims that he died at the age o f sixty-seven, I I VS 8, I I VA 23, III VA and IV VA 1 1 that he died at the age o f sixty-eight, and I VA 15 that he died at the age o f sixty-six.48 The brief and not very informative Vita Aristotelis o f Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, it must be borne in mind, is primarily a ‘ chronology’ rather than a detailed biography o f Aristotle, compiled to disprove the allegation that Demosthenes owed his rhetorical prowess to Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Hence, like Apollodorus in his Chronicle (DL V. 9-10), Dionysius was o f the opinion that he could restrict himself to citing some o f the essential dates in the life o f Aristotle. Aside from this rather scanty bit o f information, the Vita Aristotelis o f Dionysius contains practically nothing that might shed additional light on the life and work o f the Stagirite. The only novel piece o f information furnished by Dionysius is the report that Aristotle’s mother Phaestis was a descendant from the original colonists who led the Chalcidian settlers from Chalcis on the island o f Euboea to Stagira. O f great importance and much assistance to us is also his effort to date, though in all likeli­ hood not always accurately, certain key events in the life o f Aristotle by referring to the respective archonships during which these events took place. Despite its brevity, the Vita Aristotelis o f Dionysius o f Halicarnassus appears to be based on extensive research and what seems to be a fairly accurate grasp o f the most relevant facts and dates in the life o f the Stagirite. It was motivated by the desire to check and disprove the claims o f certain Peripatetics who exalted and exaggerated beyond reason and historical fact the importance and influence o f Aristotle upon the history o f rhetoric in general and on the rhetoric o f Demosthenes in particular. In so doing, Dionysius, like so many apologists, occasion­ ally overstates his case and becomes guilty o f some minor inaccuracies. What he did not know, and probably could not know, is that certain parts o f the Aristotelian Rhetoric—the ‘ Urrhetorik’ according to W. Jaeger—may date back to the years 360-55 B .C., and that during the

23

the

Vita Aristotelis

of

d io n y siu s

of

Ha

lica rna ssu s

fifties o f the fourth century B.C., Aristotle probably composed two works on rhetoric as well as taught a course o f lectures on rhetoric.49 Moreover, his manner o f dating Aristotle’s arrival in Athens in the year 367 B.C., that is, his insistence that Aristotle went there during the archonship o f Polyzelus (367-66 B.C.), when he was eighteen years old (in his eighteenth year), is open to debate.50 Most likely, Aristotle went to Athens during the latter part o f Nausigenes’ archonship (368-67 B.C., or the first year o f the 103rd Olympiad), that is, in the late spring o f 367 B.C. (after Plato had departed for Syracuse), when he was seventeen years old (in his seventeenth year), rather than in the summer or early fall o f 367. Dionysius also seems to imply that Aristotle died during the archonship o f Cephisodorus (323-22 B.C.), that is, during the first half o f the year 322, rather than during the early part o f Philocles’ archon­ ship (322-21 B.C.), that is, between July and October o f 322 B.C .51

24

Chapter III

An Analysis of the Vita Aristotelis o f Diogenes Laertius (DL V 1-16)*

Book V, sections 1-16 , o f Diogenes Laertius" The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, also called The Lives of the Philosophers (Photius) or The Lives of the Sophists (Eusthatius),1 contains a rather important, though at times confused (and confusing), account o f the life o f Aristotle.2 In his Vita, which to a large extent relies rather heavily on a biography o f Aristotle by Hermippus o f Smyrna, Diogenes Laertius also employs a number o f other divergent sources. Some o f these sources are cited by name, others can be determined with a reasonable degree o f certainty, while others cannot readily be identified. What is perhaps the most striking characteristic o f Diogenes" biography, how­ ever, is that he constantly alternates his use o f two distinct types o f sources or biographical tendencies: the decidedly sympathetic, favor­ able and even encomiastic tradition; and the clearly unsympathetic, unfavorable and even hostile trend.3 In this, Diogenes Laertius and his Vita Aristotelis differs from the majority o f the extant biographies o f Aristotle. The following is a tentative analysis o f Diogenes" rather bewildering account in terms o f these two types o f sources or tendencies. Diogenes Laertius V. 1 (subsequently cited as D L V. 1), down to Iladrjrcov, is sympathetic, the remainder unsympathetic; D L V. 2, down to fji€Trjpa, is unsympathetic, while the remainder is sympathetic or at least ‘ neutral’ ; D L V. 3, down to inacrKcov, on the whole seems to be sympathetic, but beginning with eneira fievroi (down to yeypanrac in D L V. 4) the text becomes distinctly unsympathetic; D L V. 4, beginning with ivrevOev (down to Karearpeifjev in D L V. 5), is once more sympathetic, but beginning with o S9ovv ApiaroreA^s (DL V. 5, down to & i\ okA€ovs in D L V. 10) the account seems constantly to vacillate between sympathetic and unsympathetic sources; D L V. 10, beginning with Aeyerat (down to aAeyetvrjs in D L V. 11), is un­ sympathetic; the last will and testament o f Aristotle (DL V. 11-16 ) is obviously ‘ neutral ’ (though perhaps intended to be sympathetic); and

25

the

Vita Aristotelis o f d i o g e n e s l a e r t i u s

D L V. 1 6, beginning with Aeyerai (down to hiaTrooAoZro and perhaps to iijeypoiTo), on the whole is once more unsympathetic. Although Hermippus, the author o f an On Aristotle or The Life of Aristotle (lost) and a decidedly sympathetic and even encomiastic biographer o f the Stagirite, is doubtless the main source consulted by Diogenes Laertius for his Vita Aristotelis,4 he is certainly not the only authority used by the latter. Frequently Diogenes Laertius also employs and occasionally names other sources, materials or authors, some o f which are decidedly unsympathetic towards Aristotle. D L V. i (the genealogy o f Aristotle), down to fiaOrjrcov, is in all likelihood derived from Hermippus, although Diogenes Laertius might also have found this information in some other source or sources. The description o f Aristotle’s external appearance is derived in part from Hermippus or, more likely, from Timotheus, and in part from some anonymous source or sources (Ariston o f Ceos ?). The remainder o f D L V. i relies on Timaeus. D L V. 2, down to pbrjrepa, might be based on Ariston o f Ceos, Aristoxenus or on some unknown source; the story o f Aristotle’s diplomatic mission and Xenocrates’ taking over the Academy is probably based on Hermippus; and the etymology o f the term ‘ Peripatus’ in all likelihood relies on some unknown Hellenistic authority (perhaps Hermippus ?). D L V . 3, down to inaaKoov, is derived from an anonymous author;5 Aristotle’s stay with Hermias (DL V. 3) is probably taken from Hermippus (who in turn relies on, and probably modifies, some unsympathetic reports, such as the accounts o f Theopompus and Theocritus o f Chios); and some o f the details connected with the Hermias episode (including the first part o f D L V. 4), down to yeypauTcu, go back to Demetrius o f Magnesia, to the otherwise un­ known author (Aristippus ?) o f Apiarnnros rj IJepl iraXcuas rpvfrjs (Aristippus or On the Luxury of the Ancients), probably to Theopompus (and Theocritus o f Chios), and to some other (unknown) authors. D L V. 4, beginning with ivrevdev, is taken from Hermippus, as is D L V. 5 and V. 6 (including the epigram on Hermias), with the excep­ tion o f a short reference (DL V. 6) to Demophilus (which is based on Favorinus) and the recital o f Eumelus’ (erroneous) account o f Aristotle’s death by suicide at the age o f seventy. D L V. 7 and the first part o f D L V. 8 (the hymn or paean in honor o f Hermias) might contain the original Aristotelian paean (recorded by Hermippus), while the remainder o f D L V. 8 is probably by Diogenes Laertius himself. D L V. 9-10 draws on Favorinus as well as on Apollodorus’ Chronicle,6 but the statement that Aristotle incurred Alexander’s displeasure and that Alexander heaped honors and presents on Anaximenes7 and 26

the

Vita Aristotelis o f d i o g e n e s l a e r t i u s

Xenocrates (DL V. 10) seems to go back to an anonymous authority or perhaps to Hermippus (?) who as a Peripatetic probably had a low opinion o f Alexander on account o f what the latter had done to Callisthenes. D L V. n , which contains some unsympathetic remarks made by Theocritus o f Chios (according to Ambryon’s or, better, Bryon’s or Brysons work On Theocritus) and by Timon, is probably based on Hermippus who cites here some hostile accounts. Aristotle’s last will and testament (DL V. 11-16 ) might have been taken from Hermippus or, more likely, from Ariston o f Ceos.8 A study o f the other Vitae o f Diogenes Laertius, namely, those o f (i) Theophrastus (DL V. 36-57), (ii) Straton o f Lampsacus (DL V. 58-64), (iii) Lycon (DL V. 65-74), (iv) Demetrius o f Phaleron (DL V. 75-85) and (v) Heracleides o f Pontus (DL V. 86-94), divulges that in his biographical accounts Diogenes Laertius seems to have followed a definite pattern which can also be detected in his Vita Aristotelis: (a) the name, the father’s name and the place o f birth (i, ii, iii, iv and v ); (b) the parents in general and the more remote ancestors (i and iv); (c) the teacher or teachers (i, iv and v ); (d) the intellectual or philosophic qualifications or qualities (i, ii, iii and v ) ; (e) the physical appearance (iii and v); (f) connections with some ruling dynasty or dynasties (i, ii, iii and v ) ; (g) the death (i, ii, iii, iv and v ); (h) epigrams by Diogenes Laertius on the individual philosophers (i, ii, iii, iv and v ); (i) bits o f chronological information (i, ii, iii and iv); (j) a list o f writings (i, ii, iv and v); (k) the last will and testament (i, ii and iii); (1) some apophthegms (i and iv ); and (m) homonyms (ii, iii, iv and v). Diogenes Laertius does not always observe this sequence, however. In keeping with this general pattern, which is also followed by other ancient biographers,9 Diogenes Laertius (DL V. 1) begins his Vita Aristotelis with a genealogy, relating the names o f Aristotle’s parents (Nicomachus and Phaestis),10 as well as his place o f birth, Stagira (Stagiros).11 Referring to Hermippus’ On Aristotle (or, The Life of Aristotle), Diogenes Laertius adds a rather detailed portrait o f Aristotle’s father, intended to be laudatory: the father, Nicomachus, is apparently the son (the descendant) o f another Nicomachus (?) or ‘ Nicomachus the Elder’ (?)—Diogenes Laertius does not actually say this—the descendant (grandson?) o f Machaon, and the descendant (greatgrandson?) o f Asclepius.12 Thus Aristotle is the descendant o f the illustrious (legendary?) Asclepius, the famed and widely-honored physician o f Homeric antiquity.13 In order to further exalt Aristotle’s father and, by implication, Aristotle himself, Diogenes Laertius (Hermippus) adds the remark that Nicomachus, Aristotle’s father, was

27

the

Vita Aristotelis o f d i o g e n e s l a e r t i u s

a physician at the Macedonian royal court. Moreover, he was not merely the court physician o f King Amyntas III o f Macedonia (c. 393 to 370-69), but was also—and Diogenes Laertius (Hermippus) makes a special point o f this—the monarch’s personal friend and confidant.14 In so doing, Hermippus (and after him Diogenes Laertius) intends to emphasize the social and professional standing as well as the political importance o f Aristotle’s ancestry. Apparently he also wishes to introduce and justify the close connections between the Macedonian royal house and the family o f Aristotle (including Aristotle himself). Aristotle’s mother, Phaestis, is referred to again in his last will and testament (DL V. 16) where the pious son provides that a ‘ likeness’ o f her should be dedicated to Demeter in Nemea.15 The father, Nico­ machus, is not mentioned again, however. Hence, it can be inferred that he as well as his wife Phaestis died while Aristotle was still rather young.16 In his testament (DL V. 15), Aristotle also speaks o f his brother Arimnestus but fails to name his sister Arimneste.17 Diogenes Laertius continues (DL V. 1): ‘ Aristotle was the most genuine disciple o f Plato,’ a remark which can also be found in Dionysius o f Halicarnassus.18 For some unknown reason this observa­ tion, which presumably goes back to Hermippus, is inserted between the account o f Aristotle’s genealogy and a description o f his external appearance. Originally, this particular observation, in all likelihood, was connected with D L V. 2, where we are informed, on the authority o f Hermippus, that on the death o f Plato in 348-47 B .C ., Speusippus became the new scholarch o f the Academy, and that on the death o f Speusippus in 339 B.C. (and while Aristotle supposedly was on a diplomatic mission to Macedonia on behalf o f Athens), Xenocrates rather than Aristotle became the new scholarch (despite the fact that Aristotle rather than Speusippus or Xenocrates was ‘ the most genuine disciple o f Plato’).19 According to Timotheus’ ITepl fttcov, Aristotle ‘ spoke with a lisp’ (DL V. i).20 Diogenes Laertius also relates that it is said ( and Chapter IX , note 22. 1 7 I V VA 9 adds that apparently no one interfered with Aristotle’s voluntary departure. 18 V M 4 1 - 2 ; V V 19 -2 0 ; V L 4 3-4 . See also Elias (olim David), Comment, in

Porphyrii Isagogen et in Aristotelis Categorias, C IA G , vol. X V III, part 1 (ed. A . Busse, Berlin, 1900), p. 12 3 , lines 15 ff.; D L V . 9 (Favorinus); Aelian, Varia Historia III. 36; Origen, Contra Celsum I. 380; Eustathius,

Comment, in Odyss. V II 1 2 0 - 1 ; Athenaeus, op. cit., X V . 696A ff. W hile V V 19, V L 43, I I V S 3, I I VA 2 1 and I V VA 8 mention Socrates in this connection, V M 4 1 omits any such reference. The quotation from Homer, Odyssey VIII. 120, ‘ Pear grows upon pear, and fig upon fig,’ is an oblique reference to the many professional informers (sycophants) who made life in Athens almost unbearable. It is possible that some o f the dicta credited to the departing Aristotle were contained in a letter which he addressed to Antipater (see I V VA 7), provided such a letter (or letters) was actually written by Aristotle. D L V . 2 7 (no. 144) mentions Letters to Antipater in nine books. 19 D L V . 9 (Favorinus); Athenaeus, op. cit., 6 9 7 A B ; Origen, Contra Celsum I. 380; TV VA \o. 20 See note 17, supra. Some Hellenistic authors (e.g. Artemon) probably transferred Theophrastus’ Defense Against Hagnonides o f 319 B.C. to Aristotle. See Aelian, Varia Historia VIII. 12. Favorinus, according to the testimony o f D L V . 9, called this Defense a ‘ forensic speech.’ 2 1 I V VA 10. This would indicate that in his Vita Aristotelis Ptolemy (-elGarib) had denied the authenticity o f this Defense. It will be noted that also Athenaeus, op. cit., X V . 697B, doubts its authenticity. See note 7, and the corresponding text. V H 10 (no. 189) lists this Defense among the spurious works o f Aristotle. 22 See Plato, Apology i y E f f ; Plato, Meno 9 4 E f f ; Xenophon, Defense o f Socrates 29. 23 See A .-H . Chroust, Socrates: Man and Myth — The Two Socratic Apologies o f

Xenophon (London, 1957), pp. 164 f f ; pp. 189 ff. 24 See D L V . 6; Athenaeus, op. cit., X V . 696A. See also notes 3 -7 , and the corresponding text. 25 The graphe asebeias, it may be presumed, was no longer officially enforced in 323 B.C. 26 V H 6 mentions the ‘ hym n,’ but not the Delphic inscription. See note 2. 2 7 It has been argued that since Aristotle had his ‘ own school’ in Athens after 3 3 5 -3 4 B.C., he must have had a respectable standing in the Athenian community. This reasoning, however, overlooks two salient factors: first, it is by no means certain that in 3 3 5 -3 4 or any time thereafter Aristotle founded and owned such a separate school (in a legal or physical sense)

371

NOTES

TO

CHAPTER

X II, P AG ES

149-51

which was 011 an equal footing with the Platonic Academ y (see Chapter X I, notes 38 and 49; Chapter X V , note 1 1 7 ) ; and, second, when Aristotle returned to Athens in 3 3 5 - 3 4 B.C., he did so with the help o f Alexander and the conquering Macedonian army (to which the Athenians surrendered rather meekly), a fact which assuredly did nothing to enhance Aristotle’s popularity with the majority o f the Athenians. See, in general, this Chapter; Chapter X I, passim ; Chapter XIII, passim. 28 Unlike the wills o f Theophrastus (D L V . 5 1-7 ), Straton o f Lampsacus (D L V . 6 1-4 ), and Lycon (D L V . 69-74), the last will and testament o f Aristotle contains no stipulations whatever regarding a ‘ school property’ or, for that matter, as regards any real property in Athens or Attica. See Chapter X I, notes 38 and 49; Chapter X V , note 11 7 . 29 30 31

DL V. 39. See notes 33-4 . This may be gathered, for instance, from Demosthenes’ Philippica, Olynthiacs and De Corona.

32 The inflammatory speeches o f Demosthenes and other anti-Macedonians (Lycurgus and Himeraeus) certainly contributed to Aristotle’s general unpopularity. 33 D L V . 38 ; Athenaeus, op. cit., XIII. 6 10 E F ; X I. 50 9 B C ; Pseudo-Plutarch,

Vita Decern Oratorum (Moralia 850B f f ) ; Pollux IX . 4 2; D L V . 38. 34 Eusebius, op. cit., X V . 2. 6. 35 V M 42. See also V L 4 4; Elias (olim David) (see note 18 ); Origen, Contra

Celsutn I. 380; Aelian, Varia Historia III. 36. 36 See note 16. 37 It is possible that, in his Oration Against the Philosophers o f 306 B.C., Demochares revived some o f the charges made by the anti-Macedonian partisans in Athens against Aristotle in the year 323 B.C. See Eusebius,

op. cit., X V . 2. 6, and notes 3 3-4 . Perhaps he also made use o f some o f the slanderous stories about Aristotle that had been invented and circulated by Theopompus, Theocritus o f Chios and by other detractors o f Aristotle. 38 See A .-H . Chroust, ‘ Aristotle returns to Athens in the year 335 b . c .,’ Laval

Theologique et Philosophique, vol. 23, no. 2 (1967), pp. 244 -54 , and Chapter X I. 39 IV V A 1 7 - 2 1 . 40 See also V M 20; V L 20; D L V . 2. A t one time (probably after 329 -28 B.C.; see D . M . Lewis, ‘ A n Aristotle Publication-Date,’ Classical Review, vol. 72, 1958, p. 108), the Amphictionic League dedicated an honorific inscription to Aristotle in Delphi for services he had rendered the League. See W . Dittenberger, Syll. Inscript. Graec.3, no. 2 7 5 ; Aelian, Varia Historia X IV . 1 ; Chapter V I, note 20. In 323 B.C., when the Amphictionic League joined the general Greek uprising against Macedonia (Lamian W ar), this inscrip­ tion was removed. W hen Aristotle heard about this incident, according to Aelian, loc. cit., he allegedly wrote a letter to Antipater in which he stated: ‘ About the decision o f the Amphictionic League and their resolve to

372

NOTES

TO

CHAPTER

XII,

PAGE

152

deprive me o f m y honors, m y feeling is that I am sorry, but not very sorry.’ O. Gigon, Vita Aristotelis Marciana (Kleine Texte fiir Vorlesungen und Ubungen, Berlin, 1962), p. 59, maintains that it is quite likely that the Athenians at one time erected a stele honoring or commemorating Aristotle; that this stele was removed in the year 323 B.C.; and that it was restored after the battle o f Crannon (in 322 B.C.). Hence, according to Gigon, the report found in I V VA 1 7 - 2 1 , after all, might be historical. I. During (see note 10), pp. 2 3 3-6 , on the other hand, holds the opposite view. See also Chapter X I. 41 Together

with

other

prominent

anti-Macedonian

political

leaders,

Himeraeus was executed by Antipater on 5 October 322 B.C., that is, after the battle o f Crannon which led to the reoccupation o f Athens by the Macedonians. This execution had nothing to do with the destruction o f the Aristotle-ste/e in 323 B.C. Demosthenes committed suicide in order to escape execution. See Plutarch, Demosthenes 29. 42 For additional detail, see A .-H . Chroust (see note 38), and Chapter XI. 43 According to Eusebius, op. cit.y X V . 2. 5 (Aristocles), ‘ Eubulides in his book

Against Aristotle . . . asserted that he [scil, Aristotle] offended Philip. This remark might possibly be a transfer from the story, related in Athenaeus, op. cit., X I. 506DE, that Plato slandered Archelaus, the king o f Macedonia. See Plato, Gorgias 4 71 A ; Plato (?), I I Alcibiades 14 1D . Athenaeus, loc. cit., also relates that Speusippus wrote a letter to King Philip reminding him that he owed the throne o f Macedonia to Plato’s advice and, hence, should cease denouncing and slandering Plato. 44 Aside from the traditional Vitae Aristotelis, this fact is also stressed by Plutarch, Curtius Rufus, Arrian, Quintilian, Dio Chrysostom, Pliny, Aelian, Athenaeus and by many others. On the authority o f Aristocles (Eusebius, op. cit., X V . 2. n ) , w e know that Aristotle was envied as well as hated (by the Athenians ?) ‘ for his friendship with kings.’ 45 D L V . 1 ; V M 2 ; V V 1 ; V L 2 ; I I VA 2 ; IV VA 2 ; Suda, ‘ article’ N ico­ machus. 46 See D L V . 2 ; V M 20; V L 20; IV VA 1 7 - 2 1 ; etc. A ll this seems to imply that Aristotle must have been very active in the political arena, something which is also borne out by the many letters (or reports ?) which he sent to Philip, Alexander and Antipater. See D L V . 27, which refers to Aristotle’s

Letters to Philip, Letters to Alexander (in four books) and to Letters to Antipater (in nine books). See also V M 23, V V 23 and V L 23, where w e are told that Aristotle was held in high esteem, and was much honored, by Antipater; and that thanks to his intercession with Philip or Alexander, he became instrumental in the rebuilding o f Stagira. See V M 1 7 ; V V 1 7 ; V L 17 ; Diodorus Siculus X V I. 52. 9; Pliny, Hist. Nat. VII. 109; Plutarch, Ne

Suaviter Quidem Vivi Posse Secundum Epicurum 15 (Moralia 10 97B ); Dio Chrysostom, Oratio II. 79; Aelian, Varia Historia III. 1 7 ; etc. See also Chapters X I and XIII. 47 See also Origen, Contra Celsutn I. 3 80.

373

NOTES

TO

CHAPTER

XII,

PAGES

I5 2 -4

48 I I VA 20. 49 See, for instance, Plato, Apology 18 A ff.; 19 A ff.; 2 1 B ff.; 2 3 A ff.; 2 3 C ff.; 24B f f ; 26D ff.; 2 9 C f f ; 33 A f f ; 34B f f ; 3 7 A f f ; 39 C f f ; et passim; Xenophon, Defense o f Socrates 10 f f ; et passim; Xenophon, Memorabilia

1. 1. 1 ff.; et passim; D L II. 40; Plato, Euthyphro 3 A ; Plato, Gorgias 52 iE ff.; etc. 50 See A .-H . Chroust, ‘ Aristotle’s first literary effort: the Gryllus — a lost dialogue on the nature o f rhetoric,’ Revue des Etudes Grecques, vol. 78, nos 3 7 1 - 3 (1965), pp. 5 7 6 -9 1, and Vol. II, Chapter III. 5 1 See A .-H . Chroust, ‘ W h at prompted Aristotle to address the Protrepticus to Them ison?’ , Hermes, vol. 94, no. 2 (1966), pp. 2 0 2 -7 , and Vol. II, Chapter IX . 52 See Eusebius, op. cit. X IV . 6. 9 (Numenius); Athenaeus, op. cit., VIII. 3 5 2 D -3 5 4 E ;

II. 60D E ; Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, Epistola ad Cn.

Pompeium 1 ; Themistius, Oratio X X III. 285A . 53 The vitriolic and persistent (and prejudiced) attacks o f Epicurus and the Epicureans on Aristotle almost amount to a special feature o f Epicurean philosophy in general. 54 O. Gigon, ‘ Interpretationen zu den Aristoteles-Viten,’ Museum Helveticum, vol. 15 (1958), p. 178, concedes, though somewhat reluctantly, that the charges against Aristotle might have been a mere pretext for dealing effectively with a much hated Macedonian alien. The same Gigon (see note 40) pp. 7 5-6 , however disagrees with the view that these charges had political overtones. He admits, nevertheless that the accounts o f Aristotle’s flight from Athens in the year 323 B .C . ‘ present many difficulties.’ Gigon continues: ‘ Undoubtedly

one m ay always resort to the solution

so

popular with modern historians that the indictment [o f Aristotle] for impiety was merely a cheap pretext to get at the friend o f Antipater. Against this explanation it might be argued (a) that ancient tradition never once refers to such an interpretation o f the whole incident; and (b) that even a mere hypothesis in order to be acceptable, must have a modicum o f credibility.’ 55 Antipater had been denounced to Alexander by someone (Olympias?). He was suspected b y Alexander o f disloyalty and o f harboring conspira­ torial designs against the king. Hence he was about to be removed from his position in Macedonia and Greece and summoned to Babylon. This being so, Antipater was unable to come to the assistance or rescue o f Aristotle. 56 I V V A 9. 57 See D L V . 1 4 - 1 5 , and the corresponding provisions in the Arabic versions o f Aristotle’s last will and testament. 58 Eusebius, op. cit., X V . 2. 8-9. See also D L V . 16. 59 See F M 4 1 ; V V 19 ; V L 4 3 ; I I V S 3 ; I I VA 2 1 ; I V VA 8; Aelian, Varia

Historia III. 36. See also note 18. 60 One reasonable and persuasive explanation for Aristotle’s retreat to Chalcis

374

NOTES

TO

CHAPTER

XIII,

PAGE

15 5

in 323 B.C. is the fact that he had a house there which he had inherited from his maternal ancestors. It is possible, however, that he went to Chalcis for the following reason: Chalcis, on the island o f Euboea, is separated from the Greek mainland by a narrow channel, the Euripus, and about forty miles from Athens. Hence, he might have toyed with the idea o f returning to Athens at some future time. W hen Antipater re-took Athens in 322 B.C., Aristotle was on his death-bed, however, if not already dead. Otherwise he might well have returned to Athens once more, this time with the military assistance o f Antipater.

CHAPTER X I I I

A R I ST OT LE , ATHENS AND THE FOREI GN P O L I C Y

OF M AC E DO N IA * In a different form and under the title o f ‘ Aristotle and Athens: some comments on Aristotle’s sojourns in Athens/ this chapter was first pub­ lished in Laval Theologique et Philosophique, vol. 22, no. 2 (1966), pp. 186-96. Admittedly, Chapter X III covers as well as repeats some o f the topics which have already been discussed in Chapters VII, IX , X I and XII. However, while these previous chapters attempt to establish the historicity or biographical significance o f certain salient events in the life o f Aristotle, Chapter X III essays to demonstrate that many o f these events had decidedly political overtones— that in some w a y they were closely connected with, and in some instances apparently caused by, certain political occurrences which took place in the Eastern Mediterranean world between c. 370-69 B.C. and 323 B.C., such as the death o f King Amyntas III o f Macedonia in 370-69 B.C.; the dynastic struggles which convulsed Macedonia between 369 and 365 B.C.; the ascendancy o f King Philip after 359 B.C.; the early expansionist policies o f King Philip in 349-48 B.C.; the further expansionist designs o f King Philip as regards Thrace and the Thracian Chersonesus as well as his early plans to invade Asia M inor; the political confrontation between Greece and Macedonia prior to the battle o f Chaeronea in 3 3 8 B.C.; the general political situation after the battle o f Chaeronea; the death o f King Philip and the ascendancy o f King Alexander to the throne o f Macedonia in 336 B.C.; the revolt o f the Greek states against Macedonia and the submission o f Athens to King Alexander in 335 B.C.; the ‘ occupa­ tion’ o f Athens by Macedonia between 335 and 323 B.C.; and the sudden death o f King Alexander in June o f 323 B.C. as well as the ensuing antiMacedonian revolt in Athens and in Greece during the latter half o f 323 B.C. All these events, some ofw hich shaped the whole history o f Western man­ kind in a most decisive manner, to a very large extent determined, or caused, some o f the most important incidents in the life o f Aristotle, the Macedonian. More than that: Aristotle’s whole life not only seems to have been inextricably tied up with these world-shaking events, but it also appears that he himself played an important role in the shaping o f some o f

375

NOTES

TO

CHAPTER

XIII,

PAGES

1 5 5 —6

these events. Hence, it is most appropriate to analyze and discuss anew the several topics which had already been treated separately in Chapters VII, IX , X and X II; and to integrate them into one single coherent narrative stressing their political significance or implications. Such an undertaking, which could also be presented under the subtitle o f ‘ Aristotle, the States­ man,’ should also make it sufficiently clear that the historical Aristotle was certainly more than a contemplative philosopher or a prolific author o f philosophic works. This far-reaching and perhaps decisive insight which apparently has escaped the attention o f most scholars, certainly deserves a separate and detailed discussion, even at the risk o f seeming repetitious. 1 See A .-H . Chroust, ‘ Aristotle enters the Academ y,’ Classical Folia , vol. 19, no. 1 (1965), pp. 2 1- 9 , and Chapter VII. 2 V M 5; V V 4; VL s ; I V S 4 ; I V A 4 ; I V V A 3 . 3 IVVA3. 4 This is brought out, for instance, in V M 4 ; V V 3 ; VL 4 ; I I VA 3-4 .

I I V A 3 also maintains that Nicomachus, the father o f Aristotle, personally turned over the latter to a ‘ school o f poets, orators and schoolmasters ’ in Athens, and that he did so when Aristotle was a mere eight years old. This story, at least as it is presented by Al-Mubashir, is probably a later invention or, perhaps, the result o f some confusion caused by the source used by Al-Mubashir. In any event, it is not well substantiated. See A .-H . Chroust (see note 1), pp. 2 1 - 2 , and Chapter VII. 5 D L V . 1 ; V M 1 - 2 ; V V 1 - 2 ; V L 1 - 2 ; I VA 1 ; I I V S 1 ; I I VA 2 ; I I I VA 3;

I V VA 2 ; V H 1 ; Suda, ‘ article’ Nicomachus. 6 See A .-H . Chroust, ‘ The genealogy o f Aristotle,’ Classical Folia , vol. 19, no. 2 (1965), pp. 139 -4 6 , and Chapter V . Epiphanius, De Graecis SectisExc. 3 1, in H. Diels, Doxographi Graeci (Berlin, 1879), p. 592, relates that, according to some authors, Aristotle was a Macedonian, and according to others a Thracian, that is, a ‘ barbarian’ or ‘ semi-barbarian.’ 7 See V M 3 ; V V 2 ; V L s ; I V V A 3. See note 9. 8 See A .-H . Chroust (see note 6), pp. 14 4 -5 , and Chapter V . See also notes 1 - 3 . According to Philochorus (V M 10 ; V L 10), Aristotle went to Athens during the latter part o f Nausigenes’ archonship (368-67 B.C.), that is, during the first year o f the 103 rd Olympiad, or to be more exact, during the spring or late spring o f the year 367. According to Dionysius o f Halicarnassus (Apollodorus?), I Epistola ad Ammaeum 5, he arrived in Athens during the early part o f Polycelus’ archonship (367-66 B.C.), that is, in the second year o f the 103rd Olympiad, or to be more exact, in the late summer or fall o f 367 b . c . On the whole, the dating o f Philochorus has been accepted. Since, according to Philochorus, Aristotle was born in 384 B.C. (in the first year o f the 99th Olympiad, during the early part o f Diotrephes’ archonship, 384-83), that is, probably in the summer o f 384 B.C., he arrived in Athens before he had turned seventeen. 9 V M 3 ; V V 2 ; V L 3 ; IV VA 3. These Vitae insist that at the time Aristotle went to Athens (in 367 B.C.) he was ‘ orphaned.’ See note 7.

376

NOTES

TO

CHAPTER

XIII,

PAGES

1 5 6 —8

10 This might very well have been the ‘ advice’ given by the Delphic oracle. See note 2. 1 1 See A .-H . Chroust, ‘ Aristotle leaves the Academ y,’ Greece and Rome, vol. 14, no. 1 (1967), pp. 39-43, and Chapter IX . Aristotle withdrew from Athens (and from the Academy) in the first year o f the 108th Olympiad, during the early part o f the archonship o f Theophilus, that is, probably in the summer or early fall o f 348 B.C. 12 Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica X V . 2. 5 (Eubulides), also reports that at the time o f Plato’s death, Aristotle was no longer in Athens. 13 It might be argued here that I I V S 3 -4 is only a badly garbled account, or confused combination, o f two wholly unrelated incidents in the life o f Aristotle: Aristotle’s sojourn with Hermias o f Atarneus (348-47 to 34 5-44

B.C.), and the indictment o f Aristotle in 323 B.C. for alleged impiety. See this Chapter and Chapter XII. It was this indictment in 323 B.C. which prompted Aristotle to flee to Chalcis in order to escape condemnation and possible execution. See Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae X V . 696A ff.; D L V . 5 -6 ; I I VA 2 0 - 1 ; I V VA 7 ; V M 4 1 ; V V 19 ; V L 43. W hen the author o f I I VS 3 insists that Aristotle went to a place ‘ near the Hellespont,’ he might well be alluding to Assos (or Atarneus), which is ‘ near the Hellespont.’ See A .-H . Chroust, ‘ Aristotle’s Flight from Athens in the Year 323 B.C.,’ Historia, vol. 15 , no. 2 (1966), pp. 18 5-9 2 , and Chapter XII. D L V . 2, on the other hand, might refer to the story, circulated by some detractors o f Aristotle, that in order to annoy Plato, Aristotle left the Academy while Plato was still alive, and founded his own independent school in the Lyceum. See V M 9 ; 2 5 - 9 ; V V 6 - 1 1 ; V L 9; 2 5 -9 ; Eusebius, op. cit., X V . 2. 3; Aelian, Varia Historia IV. 9; Helladius, in Photius, Bibliotheca

(533

b x3> ed. I. Bekker). See also Chapter III, notes 38 -45, and the corresponding text.

14 On the occasion o f the heated debates over the question o f whether Athens should enter into a political and military alliance with threatened Olynthus, Demosthenes delivered his Olynthiac Orations which were animated by the same violent anti-Macedonian spirit as his Philippics. 15 In his Philippics and, especially, in his Olynthiacs. 16 Shortly before his death, Aristotle is said to have written a letter to Antipater in which he pointed out that ‘ in Athens things which are proper for a citizen are not proper for an alien’ ; and that ‘ it is dangerous [for an alien] to live in Athens.’ V M 4 2; V V 20; V L 44. See also Elias (olim David),

Comment, in Porphyrii Isagogen et in Aristotelis Categorias (proem.), C L 4G, vol. X V III, part 1 (ed. A . Busse, Berlin, 1900), p. 12 3, lines 15 ff. In his

Oration Against the Philosophers, Demochares accused Aristotle o f having betrayed Stagira to the Macedonians (in 349 B.C.), and with having denounced to King Philip the wealthiest citizens o f Olynthus (in 348 B.C.), who on account o f their commercial relations with Athens were probably pro-Athenian and, hence, in favor o f a defensive alliance with that city. See D L V . 38; Athenaeus, op. cit., XIII. 6 10 E F ; X I. 509B; Pseudo-Plutarch,

377

NOTES

TO

CHAPTER

XIII,

PAGES

158-61

Vita Decern Oratorum (Moralia 850B ff.); Eusebius, op. cit., X V . 2. 6; Pollux IX . 4 2; D L V . 38. See also Eusebius, op. cit.,X V . 2 . 1 1 , and notes 70, 72 and 87; U . von W ilamowitz-Moellendorff, Antigonos von Karystos (Berlin, 18 81), p. 19 2 ; p. 270 ; I. During, Herodicus the Cratetean (Stockholm, 19 41), pp. I 4 9 -5 I. 1 7 See note 16. 18 Socrates, too, might have been the victim o f political entanglements and animosities. It is not unreasonable to conjecture that Socrates’ trial and condemnation in 399 B.C. was basically a political incident in the bitter and protracted struggle between th e4democratic ’ and the oligarchic-aristocratic factions in Athens. See A .-H . Chroust, Socrates: Man and Myth — The Two

Socratic Apologies o f Xenophon (London, 1957), pp. 164 ff.; pp. 189 ff. Socrates had, or was suspected o f having, close ties with some o f the much despised Thirty Tyrants, especially with Critias and Charmides. 19 See also A .-H . Chroust (see note 11) , and Chapter IX . 20 See Chapter IX , notes 2 0 -1, and the corresponding text. This might also be the ultimate meaning o f V M 15 , V V 15 and V L 15 , where w e are told that Aristotle ‘ did much w ork for King Philip.’ 2 1 Proxenus is said to have been a native o f Atarneus. See V M 3 ; V V 2 ; V L 3. See also Chapter V , note 34. 22 See Demosthenes, Fourth Philippic (Oratio X ) 32. 23 See text, this Chapter. 24 This might be inferred from Demosthenes, Fourth Philippic (Oratio X ) 32, where w e are informed that ‘ the agent [Hermias], who was privy to all o f Philip’s schemes against the King o f Persia, has been captured, and the King w ill hear o f all these p lo ts. . . from the lips o f the very man who planned and carried them o u t.. . . ’ Demosthenes refers here to the capture o f Hermias b y Mentor in 3 4 1-4 0 B.C., and to the possibility that under torture Hermias would divulge the secret negotiations which had been carried on between him and Philip o f Macedonia through the mediation o f Aristotle. See also Areius Didymus, In Demosthenis Orationes Commenta (ed. H. Diels and W . Schubart, Berlin, 1904), col. 5, 64 ff.; Diodorus Siculus X V I. 52. 5 ; Polyaenus V I. 48; Pseudo-Aristotle, Oeconomicus II. 1 1 . 38 ; D . E. W . W orm ell, ‘ The literary tradition concerning Hermias o f Atarneus,’ Yale Classical Studies, vol. V (1935), pp. 5 7 -9 2 ; W . Jaeger, Aristotle: Fundamentals o f the History o f His Development (Oxford, 1948), pp. 11 7 -2 0 . 25 D L V . 2 7 (no. 144): ‘ Letters to Mentor, in one book.’ 26 See D L V . 6: ‘ This man [scil., Hermias], in violation o f the hallowed laws o f the Immortals, was unrighteously slain . . . b y treachery with the aid o f one [scil., Mentor] in w hom he had put his trust.’ See also Areius Didymus (see note 24), col. 6, 36. It w ill be noted that in order to capture Hermias, Mentor used the same means Tissaphemes, according to Xenophon, had employed in capturing Clearchus, Agias, Menon and Socrates after the battle o f Cunaxa in 401 B.C.

378

NOTES TO CHAPTER X I I I , PAGES 1 6 1 - 4 27 This might be the ultimate meaning o f Hermias’ last message to his friends in which he insists that he had done nothing ‘ unworthy o f philosophy [that he had not betrayed his friends to the Persians].’ Areius Didymus,

op. cit., col. 6, 13 ff. 28 See note 24. 29 See Areius Didymus, op. cit., col. 5, 51 ff. 30 See, for instance, V M 16 ; 2 7 ; V V 16 ; V L 16 ; I VA 8; I I VA 2 5 ; 36;

I V VA 25. A ll the biographers o f Aristotle are quite emphatic in the praise o f his many ‘ public services.’ See also Eusebius, op. cit., X V . 2. 1 1 . 3 1 W ith the exception o f D L V . 2 (which in all likelihood is derived from Hermippus who wishes to stress the stupid ingratitude o f Athens and o f the Platonic Academy), no other biographer mentions this diplomatic mission o f Aristotle (on behalf o f Athens?), although several Vitae

Aristotelis refer to the many valuable services he had rendered the city o f Athens (and other cities as well). See, for instance, I V VA 17 ff.; Diodorus Siculus X V I. 7 7 ; X V I. 84; etc. See pp. 17 5 -6 . 32

See Demosthenes, Oratio X . 32, cited note 24.

33

This might be the ultimate meaning o f Eubulides’ statementthat at one time Aristotle ‘ offended Philip.’ See Eusebius, op. cit., X V . 2. 3 ; X V . 2. 5, where w e are told that Aristotle ‘ fell out with Philip.’ Although betrayed by Philip, Hermias, even when subjected to torture, apparently did not betray Philip (or Aristotle) to the Persians. See note 26 and notes 89 and 92. This loyalty on the part o f Hermias, it might be contended, prompted Aristotle to bestow many posthumous honors upon Hermias.

34

V M 2 4; V V 2 3 ; V L 2 4 ; I VA 1 0 - 1 1 ; I I VA 19 ; 2 4 - 5 ; I V VA 6; 2 2 - 3 ; Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, I Epistola ad Ammaeum 5 ; Apollodorus, Chronicle, in D L V . 10. See also Chapter X I. Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, loc. cit., states that this happened during the archonship o f Evaenetus (335-34 B .C .) , and Apollodorus, loc. cit., maintains that it occurred in the

second year o f the m t h Olympiad (3 3 5 -3 4 B.C.). 35 D L V . 4 relates that ‘ when he [scil., Aristotle] thought that he had stayed long enough with Alexander, he departed for Athens.’ Similar views can be found in V M 2 4; V V 2 3 ; V L 2 4; I VA 10 ; I I V A 19 ; 2 4 -5 ; I V V A 6 ; 2 2 -3 . Although these Vitae state that Alexander’s departure for Asia was the prime reason for Aristotle’s return to Athens, they also imply that he wanted to return there in order to dedicate himself to the further study or to the teaching o f philosophy. See, for instance, I. During, Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition (Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, vol. 63, no. 2, Goteborg, 1957), p. 460. The story, found in V M 18, V V 18 and V L 24, namely, that after the death o f Speusippus (in 339 -38 B.C.), the Academy recalled Aristotle and asked him to run the school together with Xenocrates, is probably a later encomiastic invention, as is the report that, after the death o f Plato, Speusippus himself tried to bring back Aristotle. See also I I V S 4. 36 Plutarch, Alexander 8.

379

NOTES TO CHAPTER X I I I , PAGES 1 6 4 - 6 37 Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, loc. cit., note 34. 38 See Chapter X I. 39 Prompted by wishful thinking, in 335 B.C. Demosthenes actually produced a man who allegedly had witnessed the death o f Alexander. The same Demosthenes assured the Athenians that they had nothing to fear from so young and inexperienced a boy as Alexander. See Chapter X I, note 12. 40 See I V A 9; I V VA 16. Similarly, I I VA 36 and I V VA 25. D L V . 26, lists letters o f Aristotle to Philip, Alexander, Antipater (in nine books), Mentor, Olympias, Hephaestion and others. See also V H 10 (no. 13 7 ); V M 16 ; 2 7 ;

V V 16 ; V L 1 6 . 4 1 I V VA 1 5 ; Eusebius, op. cit., X V . 2. 1 1 . 42 I I V A 2 8 ; I V A 7-%-,IVVA i s ; V M i $ ; 2 y , V V 2 1 ; 43 I V V A 16 ; 1 7 - 1 8 ; I I VA 20; V M 1 6; V L 16.

K L i 5;23;49.

44 I V VA 16 ; I I VA 2 5 ; V M 16 ; 20; V L 16 ; 20; D L V . 2. I V VA 1 2 relates that Aristotle ‘ tried his hand at governing cities * (was engaged in politics) until he reached the age o f thirty. 45 I V V A 1 7 - 1 8 ; I VA 1 1 ; I I VA 2 5 ; V M 20; V L 20. 46 I V V A 1 7 - 1 8 . 47 It will be noted that the text found in Usaibia (IV V A 17 -18 ) follows rather closely the traditional pattern and style o f Greek honorific decrees or inscriptions. This fact in itself lends some support to the assumption that the whole report o f Usaibia m ay be based on historical truth. See A .-H . Chroust, ‘ Aristotle returns to Athens in the year 335 B.C./ Laval Theologique et Philosophique, vol. 23, no. 2 (1967), pp. 244-54, and Chapter X I, especially notes 30 -2, and the corresponding texts, as well as the discussion o f this problem in the text o f Chapter X I, after note 33. See also E. Drerup, ‘ Ein attisches Proxeniendekret fur Aristoteles/ Mittheilungen des Kaiserlichen Deutschen Archeologischen Instituts, vol. 23 (Athens, 1898), pp. 36 9 -8 1. 48 See A .-H . Chroust (see note 47) and Chapter X I. 49 See A .-H . Chroust (see note 13) and Chapter XII. 50 D L V . 5-6. 5 1 Athenaeus, op. cit., X V . 696A. V M 4 1, V V 19, V L 43, I I V A 20, and

I V V A 7, report that Eurymedon had charged Aristotle with impiety, but they do not base this indictment on the allegedly sacrilegious hym n or paean in honor o f Hermias, or on the honorific inscription at Delphi commemorating Hermias. Neither the V M , nor the VV, nor the V L mentions the indictment o f Aristotle. Th ey merely relate that ‘ the Athenians turned against him [scil., Aristotle]/ V M 4 1; V V 19 ; V L 43.

V H 6, on the other hand, explicitly cites the hym n or paean. See also note 52. 52 Athenaeus, op. cit., X V . 696A -696E (frag. 675, Rose). See also Chapter X II, notes 3 -7 , and the corresponding text; D L V . 7 -8 ; Lucian, Eunuchus 9 (frag. 675, R ose); Himerius, Oratio VI. 6 -7. Athenaeus* source is probably Hermippus. See Athenaeus, op. cit., X V . 696EF. For the hymn or paean, see also Areius Didymus, op. cit., col. 6, 22 ff.

380

NOTES TO CHAPTER X I I I , PAGES T 6 6 - 8 53 I I VA 2 0 -1.

54 IV VA 7 -10 . 55 See also Origen, Contra Celsum I. 380 (Migne, vol. II, p. 781b). 56 This particular account recasts some o f the events which, according to the testimony o f Plato, Xenophon and others, allegedly transpired during the indictment and trial o f Socrates in the year 399

B .C .

57 I I VA 20. 58 I I VA 2 1. 59 IV VA 8-9 in substance restates I I VA 2 1, adding, however, an important bit o f information: apparently no one interfered with Aristotle’s voluntary departure from Athens. See also Eusebius, op. cit., X V . 2. 8, and note 81. 60 See A .-H . Chroust (see note 17), pp. 164 ff.; 189 ff. 61 The story that Aristotle composed a speech in his defense (D L V . 9, quoting Favorinus) is probably spurious. This is stressed in IV VA 10. See also Athenaeus, op. cit., 697A B ; Aelian, Varia Historia VIII. 1 2 ; Origen, loc. cit., note 55 ; V H 10 (no. 189), where a Defense Against the Charge o f Impiety,

Addressed to Eurymedon, is listed among the spurious works o f Aristotle. But, like in the case o f Socrates, there might have existed a Defense (or Apology) o f Aristotle, composed by some unknown author or authors. 62 IV VA 8-9. See also note 59. Apparently, Aristotle was also permitted, or somehow managed, to take with him all his moveable possessions, which must have been considerable, as well as his many servants. See notes 82-4. Accordingly, his departure from Athens in 323

B .C .

must have been a rather

leisurely affair. 63 In the case o f Socrates, too, the Athenians seem to have hoped that he would leave the city voluntarily, and thus relieve them o f the unpleasant and always risky task o f a formal trial. It is also believed that after the trial the Athenians would have preferred to see Socrates escape from prison and flee to some other city, thus relieving them o f the unpleasant duty o f executing him. This is indicated by the Platonic Crito , unfortunately not a very reliable source. 64 I I V A 20. 65 Eurymedon, w e are told, was the highest religious official connected with the Eleusian mysteries. From this it might be inferred that some o f the charges brought against Aristotle in 323

B .C .

were, in some w ay, also

related to the story that, according to Lycon Pythagoraeus, Aristotle had sacrificed to his wife, Pythias, after her death, ‘ as the Athenians sacrifice to the Eleusian Demeter ’ (Eusebius, op. cit. X V . 2. 8); or, according to the author o f Aristippus or On the Luxury o f the Ancients, that he had done so while Pythias was still alive (D L V . 4). Hence, Aristotle would have been guilty o f blasphemy. However, neither Lycon nor the author o f the

Aristippus are reliable reporters, although they are dedicated detractors o f Aristotle.

66 See, for instance, V M 20; VL 20; I VA 2 5; I V VA 17 -18 . 67 See V M 12 ; 42; V V 6; V L 12. These reports stress the fact that Aristotle 381

NOTES TO CHAPTER X I I I , PAGES 1 6 8 - 7 0 was an ‘ alien* (feVos*, extraneus) in Athens and hence lived there by mere sufferance, having no power or influence whatever. 68 This fact is stressed many times not only by Aristotle’s biographers, but also by a number o f ancient historians and authors, such as Plutarch, Pliny, Aelian, Quintilian, Dio Chrysostom, Curtius Rufus, Arrian and many others. In his last w ill and testament, which was drafted probably in 3 2 3 -2 2 B.C., Aristotle named Antipater his chief executor or administrator. See D L V . 1 1 ; 13, and the corresponding provisions in the Arabic versions o f this will. See also note 85. 69 Eusebius, op. cit., X V . 2 . 1 1 (Aristocles) maintains that Aristotle was envied and hated [by the Athenians ?] because o f ‘ his friendship with kings.* This remark m ay refer to Aristotle’s close connections with King Philip, Alexander, and with Antipater and Hermias. 70 Demochares, the nephew o f Demosthenes, in 306 B.C. justified (and sup­ ported) the decree o f Sophocles (D L V . 38) which called for the expulsion o f all foreign, ‘ subversive* or philo-Macedonian philosophers. A t the same time, Demochares denounced Aristotle in particular. He alleged that Aristotle had sent many letters (intelligence reports ?) to Antipater (D L V . 27, no. 144, mentions nine ‘ books* o f letters addressed b y Aristotle to Antipater), that some o f these letters had been intercepted b y the Athenians, and that the content o f these letters was detrimental to the (political?) interests o f Athens. See note 16 and notes 72 and 87. 7 1 Antipater had been denounced to Alexander b y Olympias, the mother o f Alexander, who charged Antipater with disloyalty and with conspiring against the king. Alexander, who had become increasingly suspicious o f his ow n lieutenants and whose temper and general disposition was steadily worsening during the last years o f his life, saw himself surrounded and betrayed b y a host o f alleged conspirators and enemies. 72 It is possible that in his Oration Against the Philosophers, Demochares also revived, and magnified, some o f the accusations made against Aristotle b y the anti-Macedonian faction in Athens in the year 323 B.C., and probably during the years 3 3 5 -3 4 to 323 b . c . See notes 16, 70, and 87. 73 I V VA 1 7 - 2 1 . See also Chapter X I. 74 It has already been pointed out that in its technical phraseology the honorific inscription mentioned in I V

V A 1 8 - 1 9 is very close to

the traditional wording o f Athenian decrees o f proxenia. See note 47 and the corresponding text; Chapter X I. 75 I V V A 2 0 . 76 Together with other prominent anti-Macedonian leaders in Athens, Himeraeus was executed b y Antipater after the battle o f Crannon and the re-occupation o f Athens b y the Macedonians in the fall o f 322 B.C. See Plutarch, Demosthenes 28. 7 7 D L V . 5 -6 ; Athenaeus, op. cit., X V . 696A ff.; V H 6 ; Areius Didymus (see note 24), col. 6, 18 ff.; 6, 36 ff. 78 This seems to be implied in I I V S 3.

382

NOTES TO CHAPTER X I I I , PAGES I 7 O - 3 79 I I VA 20; I V VA 7. W e m ay add also the story, widely circulated in Athens, that Aristotle had allegedly sacrificed to his wife, Pythias, as the Athenians sacrificed to the Eleusian Demeter. See note 65. 80 It could possibly be argued that Aristotle, being a philosopher, under the circumstances should have acted as Socrates had acted in 399 B.C. and hence should have faced his enemies and accusers in open court rather than run away. Such an argument, to be sure, is without merit. Socrates was an Athenian as well as a citizen o f Athens, while Aristotle was a Macedonian and an alien who, as he himself admitted, had no legal standing in Athens. See notes 16 and 67. Moreover, as a ‘ political agent’ o f Macedonia he most certainly had no cause for making a heroic stand in the name o f philosophy in an Athenian court. See also Chapter X IV , note 28. 81 I V VA 8. See also Eusebius, op. cit., X V . 2. 8, and note 59. 82 D L V . n - 1 6 . 83 For a detailed discussion o f the Arabic version o f Aristotle’s last will and testament, see A .-H . Chroust, ‘A brief analysis o f the Vita Aristotelis o f Diogenes Laertius (D L V . 1 1 - 1 6 ) ,’ Antiquite Classique, vol. 34, fasc. 1 (1965), pp. 12 6 -8 ; A .-H . Chroust, ‘Aristotle’s last will and testament,’

Wiener Studien, vol. 80 (Neue Folge, vol. I, 1967), pp. 9 0 - 11 4 ; A .-H . Chroust, ‘ Estate planning in Hellenic antiquity: the last will and testament o f Aristotle,’ Notre Dame Lawyer, vol. 45, no. 4 (1970), pp. 6 29 -62; Chapter X V . 84 Eusebius, op. cit., X V . 2. 6-8. See also D L V . 16, and note 62. 85 D L V . 1 1 ; V . 13, and the corresponding provisions in the Arabic version o f Aristotle’s will. See also note 68. 86 D L V . 27 (no. 144) refers to ‘ nine books o f letters addressed to Antipater.’ 87 Eusebius, op. cit., X V . 2. 6. See also notes 16, 70, and 72. 88 See Plato (?), Sixth Epistle, passim', A .-H . Chroust, ‘ Plato’s Academ y: the first organized school o f political science in antiquity,’ Review o f Politics, vol. 29 (1967), pp. 25-40. 89 See notes 2 0 -30 and the corresponding text. Undoubtedly, while residing with Hermias (for whom he had much admiration), Aristotle encouraged and supported a pro-Macedonian and anti-Persian (and, perhaps, antiAthenian) policy on the part o f Hermias. K . J. Beloch, Griechische Ge­ schichte, vol. II, part 1 (Berlin-Leipzig, 1922), p. 527, note 3, remarks that Aristotle might have been Philip’s political agent in Atarneus. W . Jaeger,

Aristotle: Fundamentals o f the History o f His Development (Oxford, 1948), pp. 12 0 -1 , suggests the possibility that Aristotle was a political agent representing Macedonian interests in Atarneus. It is also reasonable to assume that upon his return to Macedonia in 3 4 3-4 2 B.C. Aristotle con­ tinued to recommend Hermias to Philip as a useful and reliable ally. See D. E. W . W orm ell (see note 24), passim. 90 See Areius Didymus, op. cit., col. 6, 50 ff. 91 See Arrian II. 14. 2. See also note 32 and the corresponding text. 92 See Areius Didymus, op. cit., col. 6, 13 ff.

383

NOTES TO CHAPTER X I I I , PACES T 7 3 —5 93 See also Demosthenes, Fourth Philippic (Oratio X ) 32, and note 27. 94 Areius Didymus, op. cit., col. 6, 50 ff. 95 See, for instance, Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 114 9 a 10 ; Politics 12 5 5 a 3 ff. 96 See, for instance, V M 1 5 - 1 6 ; 20; V V \ y , V L 1 5 - 1 6 ; 20; I V A 8; I I VA 2 7 -8 ; I V VA 1 5 - 1 6 . Additional evidence may be found in Plutarch, Alexander, passim ; Plutarch, Adversus Coloten 3 2 -3 (Moralia 112 6 D E ); Plutarch, N e Suaviter Quidem Vivi Posse Secundum Epicurum 15 (Moralia 10 97B ); Diodorus Siculus X V I. 52. 9 ; Valerius Maximus V . 6. 5 ; Pliny,

Hist. Nat., VII. 10 9; Dio Chrysostom, Oratio II. 79, and Oratio X L V II. 8; Aelian, Varia Historia III. 1 7 ; etc. 97 Aristotle might have learned the art o f ‘ practical politics’ in Plato’s Academy, which was certainly a hotbed o f political intrigues and schemings. See A .-H . Chroust (see note 88). And he most certainly learned a great deal o f Realpolitik from Philip o f Macedonia and Hermias o f Atarneus. 98 See, however, Chapter X . 99 Plutarch, Alexander 8. 100 W hen Philip married Cleopatra, Attalus (the uncle o f Cleopatra), presum­ ably at the instigation o f Philip, expressed the hope that Cleopatra would present the king with a legitimate son and heir. See Plutarch, Alexander 9. 10 1 See, for instance, V M 1 5 ; V L 15. 102 See notes 3 2 -3 . There exists a further explanation for Philip’s desertion o f Hermias. In a letter addressed to Philip, usually dated between 343 and 341 B.C., Theopompus, the rabid detractor o f Hermias, pointed out that the latter had a very bad reputation among the Greeks for being a treacherous and untrustworthy scoundrel. See Areius Didymus, op. cit., col. 5, 2 1 ff. It is possible that Philip paid heed to Theopompus’ incriminations o f Hermias. See also D . E. W . W orm ell (see note 24), p. 7 1. Theopompus, a Chian, harbored an unrelenting hatred for Hermias (and, incidentally, for Aristotle, the friend and kinsman o f Hermias) probably for the following reason: Eubulus, the ‘ predecessor’ o f Hermias, had wrested Atarneus from the control o f Chios; and Hermias had failed (or refused) to support the oligarchic faction on the island o f Chios, to which Theopompus and his father belonged, against the Chian democrats. The resulting victory o f the democrats over the oligarchs forced Theopompus and his father, Damasistratus, to go into exile, something for which the former never forgave Hermias. 103 It is certainly significant that Chalcis, a town on the island o f Euboea and the place to which Aristotle retired in the year 323 B.C., was at the time philo-Macedonian. Admittedly, he had a house in Chalcis (which he had inherited from his maternal ancestors), but he also possessed a house in Stagira (which he had inherited from his father). Stagira, w e know, had been rebuilt b y King Philip (or Alexander). Chalcis, however, was much closer to Athens than Stagira. This fact might support the assumption that after his flight from Athens in 323 B.C., Aristotle still entertained hopes o f returning there once more. See Chapter XII, note 60.

384

NOTES TO CHAPTERS X I I I - X I V , PAGES T 7 6 - 7 104 See notes 40-8. 105 I. During, Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, vol. 63, no. 2 (Goteborg, 1957), passim, as well as some other scholars at times are inclined to disregard or ‘ play down* these reports as mere fabrications invented by some encomiastic biographers o f Aristotle. 106 According to Dio Chrysostom, Oratio X L V II. 8 -10 , Aristotle maintained in his old age that his only truly meritorious achievements had been his political and diplomatic activities which, among other beneficial results, had led to the restoration o f Stagira. 107 See, in general, A .-H . Chroust (see note 88), passim.

CHAPTER X I V

THE M Y TH OF A R I S T O T L E ^ S UI CI DE

* In a different form, this chapter was first published in Modern Schoolman, vol. 44, no. 2 (1967), pp. 17 7 -8 . 1 D L V . 6. 2 V H 6 - 7. 3 See Frag. Hist. Graec. (Jacoby) 77, F. 1. See also F. Jacoby, Frag. Hist. Graec. (Berlin, 1926), part II C , p. 1 3 1 ; part III B , p. 483. 4 Eumelus also claims that Aristotle joined Plato and the Academy only at the age o f thirty. D L V . 6. The Syriac and Arabic Vitae Aristotelis likewise mention a tradition according to which Aristotle turned to philosophy only at the age o f thirty. I V S 6; I V A 6 \ I V VA 12. See also V M

i i

; V L

i i

.

The

story that Aristotle turned to philosophy only at the age o f thirty (V M 1 1 claims that he did so at the age o f forty) contains the nasty implication that he was a ‘ slow learner/ It might originally go back to Epicurus or the Epicureans, the implacable and tireless detractors o f Aristotle, who insisted that in his youth Aristotle was a dissipated person who turned to philosophy only after having failed in everything else. See Eusebius,

Praeparatio Evangelica X V . 2. 1 (Epicurus); X V . 2. 7 (Cephisodorus); D L X . 8; Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae VIII. 352D ff.; Aelian, Varia Historia V . 9; Philodemus, De Rhetorica: Volumina Rhetorica, vol. II, pp. 50 ff. (ed. S. Sudhaus), col. 48, 36 -57 , 45. See also Chapter VIII, notes 2, 8, 13. 5 See A .-H . Chroust, ‘Aristotle’s Flight from Athens in the Year 323 B .C .,’

Historia, vol. 15, no. 2 (1966), pp. 18 5-9 2 , and Chapter XII. See also Chapter XIII, which attempts to show that the political situation in Athens in the year 323 B.C. compelled Aristotle to leave the city. All the Vitae Aristotelis agree that Aristotle fled to Chalcis. See Eusebius, op. cit., X V . 2. 8 -9 ; Strabo X . 1. 1 1 ; Justin Martyr, Cohortatio ad Graecos 34B (Migne VI.

305). 6 I I V S 7. 7 I I VA 2 1 -2 . See also Eustathius, Dionysius Periegetes (Geographi Minores, ed. Bemardy), p. 189. Al-Mubashir or, more likely, his source may have had in mind the Ile p l rfjs uua^aGecog tov NetXov (see VH 10, no. 15 9 ;

385

NOTES TO CHAPTER X I V, PAGES 1 7 8 - 9 Ptolemy (-el-Garib), no. 2 5 ; frags 246-48, Rose) or, perhaps, the IJe p l rijs

Xidov (D L V . 26, no. 1 2 5 ; V H 10, no. 117 ). 8 Justin M artyr (see note 5); Gregory o f Nazianzus, Oratio IV. 72 (Migne, vol. 35, p. 597a); Procopius VIII. 6. 20. See also Aelian, op. cit., IX . 23. Mediaeval authors seem to know that Aristotle drowned himself in the Euripus exclaiming: ‘ Quia non possum capere te, capias me,’ or i Quoniam Aristoteles Euripum minime cepit, Aristotelem Euripus habeat.’ This would indicate that the story o f Aristotle’s alleged suicide persisted into the Middle Ages. 9 D L I. 95 (Periander), and D L V . 78 (Demetrius o f Phaleron). See also notes 12 - 1 4 . 10 D L II. 1 1 1 - 1 2 . 1 1 Pseudo-Plutarch, Vita Homeri 4 ; Heraclitus o f Ephesus, frag. 56 (DielsKranz). This passage has also been recognized as a fragment o f Aristotle’s lost w ork On Poets. See frag. 76, R o se; frag. 8, Ross. It relates that Homer once overheard some fishermen saying that ‘ what w e have caught w e do not have, and what w e did not catch, w e have.’ The fishermen were referring to lice, but Homer, believing that they were talking about fish, failed to grasp the meaning o f this statement. 12 D L II. 142. See also D L

II.

13 , where w e are told that Anaxagoras, being

unable to brook the indignity o f being jailed, took his ow n life. 13 D L IV . 3. 14 D L VI. 100. It w ill be noted that D L II. 142, D L V . 78 and D L VI. 100 are based on Hermippus. For additional material, see W . Hertz, Gesam-

melte Abhandlungen (Stuttgart-Berlin, 1905), pp. 350-62. 15 The story o f Aristotle’s alleged suicide can also be found in Suda, ‘ article’ Aristotle. 16 Censorinus, De Die Natali X I V . 16. 1 7 See D L V . 10 (Apollodorus): ‘ [Aristotle] retired to Chalcis and . . . died there a natural death.’ V M 43 and V L 46 simply report that ‘ he died’ in Chalcis. 18 Censorinus (see note 16) refers to Aristotle’s naturalis stomachi injirmitas, as well as to his other physical infirmities. See also D L V . 16, where w e are told that Aristotle placed a skin filled with warm oil on his stomach, presumably in order to alleviate pains caused b y his stomach ailment. Lycon Pythagoraeus, according to D L V . 16 and Eusebius, op. cit., X V . 2. 8, related that Aristotle bathed in w arm oil (and afterwards sold the oil). See also Aelian, op. cit., IX . 2 3 ; Gellius, Attic Nights XIII. 5 ; Valerius Maximus V . 6. ext. 5 ; Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, I Epistola adAmmaeum 5. I V V A 1 1 relates that ‘ when Aristotle arrived at his home [in Chalcis] he stayed there until he died.’ This might possibly im ply that he was already a sick man when he went to Chalcis. Gellius, loc. cit., states that at the time he went to Chalcis he was ‘ corpore aegro affectoque ac spe vitae tenui. 19 I V A 15. 20 I I VA 23.

386

NOTES TO CHAPTER XI V, PAGES 1 7 9 - 8 0

21 I V VA II. 22 I V S 5. 23 I I V S 7. 24 I I V A 23. 25 D L V . 6. 26 D L V . 8. 2 7 See, for instance, / F VA 8-9, where w e are informed that when Aristotle learned about his indictment by Eurymedon, ‘ he departed from A thens. . . before any official action was taken against him. N o one did him any harm prior to his departure/ Eusebius, op. cit., X V . 2. 8, relates that when Aristotle ‘ was starting out for Chalcis, the custom-house officials found in the vessel seventy-five brass plates/ D L V . 16 narrates that after Aristotle’s death in Chalcis a large number o f plates belonging to him were found among his possessions. Aristotle’s last will and testament likewise bears out the fact that he died a wealthy man. See Chapter X V , passim. 28 In Nicomachean Ethics i n 6 a i 3 f E ; i i 3 8 a 3 f E ; 1 1 66b 12 ff, and in Eudemian

Ethics 1229 b 32 ff., Aristotle condemns suicide. Plato, Laws 873C , on the other hand, recommends suicide under certain circumstances. The Cynics outright recommended (and frequently practiced) suicide (see D L IV. 3; VI. 18 ; VI. 2 4; V I. 7 7 ; V I. 86; VI. 9 5 ; Aelian, op. cit., VIII. 14 ; XII. 1 1 ; Athenaeus, op. cit., IV. 15 7 B ), as did the Stoics. See K . A . Geiger,

Der Selhstmord im Klassischen Altertum (Augsburg, 1888), passim. 29 V M 4 1; V V 19 ; V L 4 3; Elias, Comment, in Porphyrii Isagogen at in Aristotelis

Categorias, C IA G , vol. X V III, part 1 (ed. A . Busse, Berlin, 1900), p. 123, lines 15 ff.; Aelian, op. cit., III. 36; Origen, Contra Celsum I. 380 (Migne, P.G ., vol. II, p. 781A ). 30 D L V . 8. 3 1 A similarly confusing story can be found in D L II. 10 1. Here we are told that Euryclides, the hierophant, was found guilty o f disclosing the Eleusian mysteries to the uninitiated. ‘ Y et he would hardly have escaped from being brought before the Areopagus i f Demetrius o f Phaleron had not interceded on his behalf. Amphicrates, in his On Illustrious Men, relates that he was condemned [by the Areopagus] to drink the hemlock.’ 32 This ‘ riddle o f the Euripus’ is also mentioned in L iv y X X V III. 6; Cicero,

De Natura Deorum III. 10. 2 4; Lucan, Pharsalia V . 2 3 5 ; and others. Aristotle refers to the Euripus in Meteorologica 366 a 22 ff., and in Historia Animalium

.

547 a 6 33 See note 8. 34 It will be noted, however, that I V S 8 reports that at the time o f his death Aristotle was 67 years old; I V A 15, that he was 66 years old; and I I VA 2 3 ;

I I I VA and I V VA 1 1 , that he was 68 years old. It is commonly believed that Aristotle died at the age o f 62, that is, in his 63 rd year. He died during the first half o f Philocles’ archonship, in the third year o f the 114th O lym ­ piad, a short time before Demosthenes committed suicide. Philocles entered office early in Ju ly o f 322 B.C., and Demosthenes, according to

387

NOTES TO CH A PT E R XV, PAGES 1 8 3 - 4 Plutarch, Demosthenes 30, took his own life on the sixteenth o f Pyanepsion, that is, 14 October 322 B.C. Accordingly, it is safe to assume that Aristotle died (a natural death) in the late summer or early fall o f 322 B.C.

chapter

xv

Ar is t o t l e ’ s

last w ill and testa m en t

* In a different, much shorter and less adequate form, this chapter was first published in Wiener Studien, vol. 80 (Alte Folge), vol. I (Neue Folge), pp. 9 0 -114 . Some o f the legal or technical aspects discussed in this chapter were also analyzed, under the title o f ‘ Estate planning in Hellenic an­ tiquity: the last will and testament o f Aristotle,’ in Notre Dame Lawyer , vol. 45, no. 4 (1970), pp. 629-62. 1 See Chapter IV, notes 1-6 , and the corresponding text. See also I. During,

Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition (Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, vol. 63, no. 2, Goteborg, 1957), pp. 18 3-246 , especially, pp. 2 1 9 20; M . Plezia, Aristotelis Epistolarum Fragmenta cum Testamento (Academia Scicntiarum Polona, fasc. Ill, W arsaw , 19 6 1); J. Bidez, Un Singulier Naufrage Litteraire dans VAntiquite: A la Recherche des Epaves de VAristote Perdu (Brussels, 1943), pp. 57 ff. 2 This view is based on the fact that in D L V . 64 w e are told that the will o f Straton o f Lampsacus had been preserved in the Collection [of the Wills of the Peripatetic Scholarchs] o f Ariston o f Ceos, who is credited with having recorded, collected and transmitted not only the will o f Aristotle, but also that o f Theophrastus (D L V . 5 1-7 ), Straton o f Lampsacus (D L V . 6 1-4 ) and Lycon (D L V . 69-74). In his will Lycon mentions Ariston o f Ceos as one o f the persons who witnessed his will (D L V . 74). Lycon also enumer­ ates Ariston among the men whom he charges with carrying on the work o f the Peripatus (D L V . 70). See p. 184, and Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae XIII. 589C. 3 V M 4 3; V L 46. See also I VA 19 ; I I I V A ; I V VA (at the end); Elias (olim David), Comment, in Porphyrii Isagogen et in Aristotelis Categorias, C L 4G, vol. X V III, part 1 (ed. A . Busse, Berlin, 1900), p. 107, line 1 1 . Usaibia, it will be noted, starts his Vita Aristotelis with the following introductory remark: ‘ Thus speaks Ptolemy [-el-Garib] in his book addressed to Gallus on the life and history o f Aristotle, his last will, and the list o f his famous writings.’ About the Syriac and Arabic biographers o f Aristotle, see also A .-H . Chroust, ‘A brief summary o f the Syriac and Arabic Vitae Aris­ totelisActa Orientaliaf vol. 29, nos 1 - 2 (1965), pp. 2 3 -4 7 , and Chapter IV . 4 See A . Baumstark, Syrisch-Arabische Biographien des Aristotles (Leipzig,

1900), p. 35. 5 A n attempt to reconstruct the general arrangement and main content o f Ptolem y’s lost Vita Aristotelis has been made by I. D iking (see note 1), pp. 4 7 2 -4 ; and by A .-H . Chroust, ‘A brief account o f the traditional Vitae

Aristotelis,’ Revue des Etudes Grecques, vol. 76, nos 364-5 (1964), pp. 50-69, especially pp. 6 1-9 , and Chapter I. 388

NOTES TO CHAPTER XV, PAGES I S 4 —9 3 6 D L V. 64; Strabo XIII. 1. 54. See also note 2. 7 D L V . 52: ‘And the whole library [of the school] I leave and bequeath to Neleus.’ See also Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae I. 3A ; Strabo XIII. 1. 54. Theophrastus, it must be borne in mind, expected that Neleus o f Scepsis would succeed him in the scholarchate o f the Peripatus. W hen Neleus failed to be ‘ elected’ scholarch, he went back to Scepsis in the Troad, taking with him the library which contained the ‘ intramural’ compositions or treatises o f Aristotle as well as those o f Theophrastus and other early Peripatetics. This incident also explains w h y the doctrinal treatises o f Aristotle and those o f other Peripatetics were lost for some time. See A .-H . Chroust, ‘ The Miraculous Disappearance and Recovery o f the

Corpus Aristotelicum,’ Classica et Mediaevalia, vol. 23, nos 1 - 2 (1962), pp. 50-67. It also explains w h y some doubts exist as to the authenticity o f the extant Corpus Aristotelicum. See the corresponding remarks in the Preface.

8 D L V . 5 1- 7 . 9 Ibid., V . 6 1-4 . 10 Ibid., V . 69-74. 1 1 See A .-H . Chroust (see note 7), pp. 5 0 -1. 12 See A .-H . Chroust, ‘Aristotle’s Flight from Athens in the Year 323 b.c.,’

Historia, vol. 15, no. 2 (1966), pp. 18 5 -19 2 , and Chapter XII. 13 This is borne out by the remark o f Usaibia (IV VA 9), who maintains that when Aristotle fled from Athens in the year 323 B.C., no one interfered with his voluntary departure. See also Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica X V . 2. 8 -9 ; D L V . 16 ; etc. Tradition has it that before he left Athens, Aristotle gave his library to Theophrastus. See Athenaeus (see note 7). 14 I I VA 33-4 . See also V M 4 3 -4 ; V L 4 6 -7 ; I V S 1 1 ; IV VA 35. 15 See, for instance, Isaeus, Oratio III (In re Estate o f Pyrrhus) 59. 16 See Demosthenes, Oratio X L I V ([Aristodemus] versus Leochares, In re Estate o f Archiades) 19. 17 Isaeus (see note 15), 4 -43. 18 Demosthenes (see note 16, at 22); Demosthenes, Oratio X LIII ([Sosithcus] versus Marcatatus, In re Estate o f Hagias) 5 1; Isaeus, Oratio VIII (In re Estate o f Ciron) 3 1 ; Isaeus, Oratio X (Against Xenaenetus, In re Estate o f Aristarchus) 5. 1 2 ; Hyperides, frag. 8 (ed. Loeb). 19 Demosthenes, Oratio X L V I (II [Apollodorus] versus Stephanus, Charged with Perjury) 20; Isaeus, Oratio VIII. 3 1 ; Isaeus, Oratio X . 5 . 1 2 ; Hyperides, frag. 39 (ed. Loeb). 20 Isaeus, Oratio III. 5 0 -5 1. The legal right o f the ultimate taker as against the adopted son was called /cA^povo/zia dirdvTajv 7T(X7T7rajv. 2 1 Thucydides V . 88. 2 ; V . 6. 1; V . 18. 22 Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, I Epistola ad Ammaeitm 5. 23 It has been suggested that Stagira was founded in the thirty-first Olympiad (656-52 B.C.). 24 One o f our main sources or chief authorities for Athenian testamentary

3^9

NOTES TO CH A PT E R XV, PAGES I 9 3 ~ 5 law are the forensic speeches o f Isaeus. Isaeus himself was a native o f Chalcis and, like Aristotle, a ‘ resident alien* in Athens. Since Isaeus com­ posed many forensic speeches dealing with matters and issues arising from the problems connected with testamentary and intestate succession, it is not likely that there existed a great divergence between the law o f succes­ sion prevailing in Athens during the latter part o f the fourth century B.C. and the law o f succession prevailing in Chalcis or, for that matter, in any city which formerly had been a member o f the Delian League or which had been settled by Athens. 25 For a discussion o f the many and involved problems inherent in Aristotle’s last will and testament, see G. Bruns, ‘ Die Testamente der griechischen Philosophen,’ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fu r Rechtsgeschichte: Romanist-

ische Ahteilung, vol. I (Weimar, 1880), pp. 1 1 - 2 3 ; A . Hug, ‘ Z u den Testamenten der Griechischen Philosophen,’ Universitdt Zurich: Festschrift

zur Begrussung der Versammlung Deutscher Philologeti und Schulmanner (Zurich, 1887), pp. 1 - 2 1 ; M . Plezia, ‘ Testament Platonia i Arystotelesa,’

Meander, vol. II (1947), pp. 2 15 -2 4 . Some o f these discussions and analyses disagree with the statements made b y the present author. For additional information, see J. H. Lipsius, Das Attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren (Leipzig, 1905); J . Beauchet, Histoire du Droit Prive de la Republique Athenienne (Paris, 1897); J. W . Jones, The Law and Legal Theory o f the Greeks (Oxford, 1956), especially pp. 18 9 -9 7, and the literature cited there; A . Kranzlein, Eigentum und Besitz im Griechischen Recht des Funften und Vierten Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Berliner Juristische Abhandlungen, vol. 8, 1963), pp. 94 ff.; W . Erdmann, D ie Ehe im Alten Griechenland (19 34); H. W olff, ‘ D ie Grundlagen des griechischen Eherechts,’ Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis, vol. 22 (1952), pp. 9 f f ; H. W olff, ‘ Marriage L a w and Family in Ancient Athens,’ Traditio, vol. 2 (1944), pp. 63 f f 26 See, for instance, D L V . 51 (the w ill o f Theophrastus). This will is also discussed by G. Bruns (see note 25), pp. 2 3 -36 . 27 See D L V . 5 1 ; D L V . 6 1 (the w ill o f Straton o f Lampsacus). See G. Bruns (see note 25), pp. 3 6 -4 1. 28 See Demosthenes, Oratio X L V I . 14. 29 See note 2 7 and D L V . 69 (the will o f Lycon). See also G. Bruns (see note 25), pp. 4 1 - 6 ; Demosthenes, Oratio X L V . 18-20. 30 I I V A 34. 3 1 See, for instance, V M 4 2; V V 20; V L 44. D L V . 27 (no. 144) lists no less than nine ‘ books’ o f letters which Aristotle addressed (or is said to have addressed) to Antipater. See also V M 2 3 ; V V 2 1 ; V L 2 3 ; M . Plezia (see note 1). It is interesting to note that some o f Aristotle’s political enemies in Athens were executed b y Antipater after the battle o f Crannon and the retaking o f Athens in 322 B.C., which brought to an end the so-called Lamian W ar. See also I V VA 20. 32 See also N o . IX , pp. 20 5-6, and, especially, note 96. Under the terms o f Aristotle’s will, Antipater’s position was apparently akin to that o f the Rom an tutor honoris causa datust as contrasted by the ordinary tutor gerens.

390

NOTES TO CHAPTER XV, PAGES I 9 5 ~ 6 33 See, in general, A .-H . Chroust, ‘ The Genealogy o f Aristotle/ Classical

Folia, vol. 19, no. 2 (1966), pp. 139 -4 6, and Chapter V . See also H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich (Munich, 1926), pp. 2 75-6 . 34 See text, pp. 2 0 9 -13 , N o . X V (Arabic version). This seems to be the crux o f the whole will. I f Nicomachus is indeed the universal heir or legatee— at the time o f Aristotle’s death, he was still ‘ very yo u n g’ (see note 35)— the legal position o f Nicanor may be described as follows: as the nearest grown male agnate or male kin o f Aristotle, he is under a duty to take care o f Aristotle’s two minor children. A t the same time, he has a right not only to claim Pythias in marriage and with her the estate o f Aristotle or, at least, Pythias’ share or ‘ future interest’— since Nicomachus is only an adopted son (adopted during the lifetime o f Aristotle) he has merely a life estate which at his death would return to Pythias (or to her male children by Nicanor)— but also to become the guardian o f Nicomachus as well as the adminis­ trator o f Nicomachus’ life estate (or life interest) until the latter comes o f age. In this sense Nicanor m ay also be called ‘ interim heir designate.’ As such he was granted certain temporary powers as well as privileges (and had certain fiduciary duties) as regards Aristotle’s estate in general and Nicomachus’ life interest in particular. Since the expected male offsprings o f Nicanor and Pythias were the ultimate takers, Nicanor could not dispose o f the estate mortis causa. 35 I I VA 33. Eusebius, op. cit., X V . 2. 15, relates that Nicomachus died ‘ in the war ’ a mere lad. This statement would find support in the will o f Theo­ phrastus, drawn probably in 287-86 B.C., where the testator instructs his trustees to see to it that a memorial statue o f Nicomachus is completed. See D L V . 52. D L V . 39 also reports that ‘Aristippus, in the fourth book o f his On the Luxury o f the Ancients, asserts that he [scil, Theophrastus] was enamored o f Aristotle’s son Nicomachus, although he was Nicomachus’ teacher.’ 36 See also text, p. 203, N o . VI. 37 The decree o f proxenia bestowed upon Nicanor by the city o f Ephesus (for some meritorious deeds he had performed for the Ephesians), however, calls him ‘ the [adopted] son o f Aristotle’ (Nucavopi ApiaroreX eos ZTaye[L7]pLT7)L]). See also note 33. This is, however, not supported by the provisions found in Aristotle’s last will and testament, which seem to contradict the assumption that at one time Aristotle had adopted Nicanor. It will be noted, however, that under Athenian law wills and adoptions, either posthumous or inter vivos, had certain characteristics in common. 38 See also text, pp. 2 0 3-4 and 2 0 9 -13, N os VII and X V . 39 Under the terms o f the Synedrion o f Corinth, Alexander had no authority to dictate to the Confederates in matters concerning the management o f their internal affairs. But only two states, Athens and Aetolia— which were prepared to resist Alexander— objected to this order. Th ey objected primarily because i f this edict were enforced, they would lose some o f their ill-gotten gains: the Athenians would have to return their former lands to the Samians, and the Athenian settlers on Samos would have to relinquish

391

NOTES TO CH A PT E R XV, PAGES 1 9 6 - 8 the island. The Aetolians had taken over Oeneida and driven out the right­ ful Acarnanian owners. They, too, would have to return to the Acarnanians their former possessions. See Diodorus Siculus X V III. 8. 4 -7 . 40 See Dinarchus, Adversus Demosthenem 81. 10 3 ; Diodorus Siculus X V III. 8. 4 ; Aristotle (?), Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 14 2 1 a 38 ; Curtius Rufus X . 2 ; H. Berve (see note 33), pp. 2 76 -7. Apparently there was no objection to Alexander’s demand for divine honors. 4 1 See R . Heberdey, Festschriftfu r Theodor Gomperz (Vienna, 1902), pp. 4 1 2 16. See also note 37. It appears that Nicanor was rather active, both as a politician and soldier, in the service o f Alexander and in that o f some o f the Diodochi. This might be inferred from a number o f references to him by ancient orators and historians. See, for instance, Hyperides I. 14 ; I. 18. 9 ff.; Dinarchus (see note 40), I. 169. 1 7 5 ; Plutarch, Phocion 3 1 ff.; Diodorus Siculus X V II. 109, et passim; X V III. 64; X V III. 68; X V III. 72. 3 f f ; X V III. 72. 7 f f ; X V III. 75. 1; Polyaenus IV. 1 1 . 2. See also J. Beloch, Griechische

Geschichte, vol. Ill, part 1 (Strasbourg, 1904), p. 10 6 ; pp. 10 8 -9 ; vol. Ill, part 2, pp. 1 9 2 - 3 ; p. 38442 See also Chapter V I. Should the statement about Nicanor’s absence actually refer to the deeds he performed for Alexander rather than for Cassander, then Aristotle’s will must have been drawn before 13 June 323 B.C., the date on which Alexander died in Babylon. If this is so, then the will was drawn in Athens rather than in Chalcis. It was the sudden death o f Alexander which subsequently caused Aristotle to leave Athens rather hurriedly and to retire to Chalcis in the summer o f 323 B.C. See Chapter XII. 43 See I I V A 34. It will be noted that in the last w ill and testament o f Theo­ phrastus, Hipparchus is mentioned among the members o f the Peripatetic community. See D L V . 5 3 ; V . 54. 44 Suda, ‘ article’ Hipparchus, calls Hipparchus a ‘ relative’ o f Aristotle. Under Athenian law, the appointment o f an executor or trustee was not restricted to a kinsman o f the testator. In order to prevent fraud or depletion o f the estate by the executor or trustee, the latter, especially i f he was not a kins­ man o f the testator, frequently received a generous bequest. Moreover, the testator, in order to prevent abuse, often attempted to create ties o f kinship between himself and the executor or trustee by affiancing the executor to the testator’s w ife or daughter. 45 See also N o . IX , text, pp. 18 6 -7 an